DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

2016-17

Final Submission
on
Role of Judiciary in environment protection

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mr. Vipin Yadav Jay Vikram Singh

Asst. Professor (Law) Roll no.: 64
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project venture has been made possible due to the generous co-operation of various
persons. Apart from the efforts taken by me, the success of this project depends largely on the
encouragement and guidance of many other people. I take this opportunity to express my
thanks to the people who have been instrumental in the successful completion of this project.
To list them all is not possible, even to pay them in words is beyond the domain of my
lexicon. I would like to express my sincere thanks and deep gratitude to Mr. Vipin Yadav
Sir, without whose thorough and insightful guidance, this project work would not have been
a success. I also express my sincere thanks to the library staff of RMLNLU and my friends
for their co-operation in my endeavour.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................4
Constitutional Laws and Environmental protection..............................................................................5
Right To Environment Protection..........................................................................................................7
Judiciary and Environmental Law: CASE STUDY(s).................................................................................9
From mining......................................................................................................................................9
From Shifting Of Stone Crushers......................................................................................................10
Industrial Pollution..........................................................................................................................10
Shifting/ Relocation Of Hazardous And Noxious/Heavy Industries..................................................12
Tanneries And Discharge Of Effluents..............................................................................................13
In Urbanization Matters...................................................................................................................15
Rights of Tribals/ Adivasis and Ecological Stability...........................................................................15
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................16
BIBLIOGRPAHY.....................................................................................................................................17
INTRODUCTION

The increasing urbanization and rapid industrialization of contemporary India has led to a
host of grave environmental problems such as air, water, and noise pollution. underline this
neglect towards the environment as a contemporary phenomenon in urban India: “Human
history is, as a whole is a patchwork of, prudence and profligacy, of sustainable and
exhaustive resource use. In contemporary India the instances of profligacy clearly outnumber
(and outweigh) those of prudence although such was not always the case” 1 The “standard
environmental narrative” employed by ecologists in South Asia emphasizes the management
of “common property resources” by “local communities” to live in harmony with nature, a
paradigm which is undermined by colonial exploitation. The neglect towards environmental
concerns persists in post-colonial India manifest in the lack of a coherent environmental
policy to address environmental concerns for several years after independence. The
1970switnessed the framing of a coherent policy framework to address environmental
concerns as well as attempts to control environmental pollution through legislation based on a
“command and control structure”.2 The emergence of the Public Interest Litigation in the
realm of environmental law was necessitated by the failure of this command and control
structure to adequately address environmental concerns in India.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL) is permitted by the
Supreme Court and High Courts under writ jurisdiction at the instance of public spirited
citizens for the enforcement of constitutional and other legal rights of any person or groups of
persons who because of their disadvantageous position are unable to approach the court for
relief. The Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 can be
moved by any public spirited citizen or by NGOs for the prevention of environmental
pollution. With the rapid industrial growth, the environmental quality has come to become
secondary to the goals of economic social development, resulting in widespread pollution,
land degradation, etc. The existing administrative and institutional framework is too shaky
and ineffective to handle the challenge of environmental protection, which threatens our very
survival. Hence, there is a need to have a new environmental ethos to meet the challenge.
This is precisely where the role of an activist judiciary comes in.PIL is one of the most
inexpensive legal remedy due to nominal costs involved in filling and contesting the
litigation, even though it increases the number of frivolous litigations in courts. The

1
http://www.academia.edu/1612400/Public_Interest_Litigation_and_environmental_law_in_India
2
id
traditional concept of Locus Standi is no longer a bar for the community oriented Public
Interest Litigations. Prior to 1980s, only the aggrieved party could personally knock the doors
of justice and seek remedy for his grievance and any other person who was not personally
affected could not do so as a proxy for the victim or the aggrieved party. But around 1980,
the Indian legal system, particularly the field of environmental law, underwent a sea change
in terms of discarding its moribund approach and instead, charting out new horizons of social
justice. This period was characterized by not only administrative and legislative activism but
also judicial activism. Nevertheless, judicial activism has been instrumental in addressing the
environmental cause. It was because of the Supreme Court that the right to life and liberty, a
fundamental right under Article 21, came to include the right to a healthy environment. As a
result, an individual can approach it directly when the public interest is at stake due to
environmental harm. Acting on a PIL to curb industrial pollution of water bodies, for
instance, the Court issued notices to the Union government, Central Pollution Control Board,
and 19 states to implement pollution control norms and the “polluter pays” principle.

Constitutional Laws and Environmental protection

At present most environmental actions in India are brought under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution. The writ procedure is preferred over the conventional suit because it is speedy,
relatively inexpensive and offers direct access to the highest courts of the land. Nevertheless,
class action suits also have their own advantages. The powers of the Supreme Court to issue
directions under Article 32 and that of the high courts under Article 226 have attained greater
significance in environmental litigation. The Supreme Court of India in numerous matters
elaborated the scope of Article 21 of the constitution of India, which deals with protection of
life and personal liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by Law. In the matter of Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra Vs State of U.P. - the Hon’ble Supreme court held that the right to
unpolluted environment and preservation and protection of nature’s gifts has also been
conceded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional provisions provide
the bed-rock for the framing of environmental legislations in the country.

Article 48-A of the Constitution deals with the Protection and Improvement of Environment
and Safeguarding of Forests and Wildlife – The State shall endeavour to protect and improve
the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. On the basis of the
said provisions, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972 (as amended in 1986) have been enacted by the Parliament. Under Part IV-A of the
Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Duties have been added under Article 51-A
by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976. Under Article 51-A(g) provides the
Fundamental Duties with respect to the environment which includes - To protect and improve
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion
for living creatures3. The emergence of a coherent policy framework to address
environmental concerns in India can be traced back to the setting up of an advisory body, the
National Committee on Environmental Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) in1972
following the 24th UN General Assembly meeting on Human Environment. The 42nd
amendment of the Constitution in 1976 led to the incorporation of environmental concerns
through the addition of Article 48 A to the directive principles of state policy. The article
declares:“The state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard
the forests and the wildlife of the country.” Also, Article 51 A of the Constitution imposed a
fundamental duty on every citizen“to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for all living creatures.”Further,
Article 253 of the Constitution granted the Central government overriding powers to legislate
on environmental concerns and implement India’s international obligations. the insertion of
the article can be perceived as an attempt to introduce global concerns about the environment
within the paradigm of Indian environmental law. This endeavour towards a coordinated
approach towards environmental concerns is further manifested in the enactment of
environmental statutes that employed “a system of licensing and criminal sanctions to
preserve natural resources and regulate their use.” These include the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act1977, the Forest (Conservation) Act
1980. In an attempt to bring together diverse environmental concerns under an ‘umbrella’ Act
in the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy, the Government of India enacted the Environmental
Protection Act(1986) under Article 253 of the Constitution. This Act empowered the Centre
to “delegate its powers or functions to anyofficer, state government or other authority.” The
provisions of this Act override any other law4.

3
Dr. Upadhyay H Minal, P.I.L. and Environment Protection. International Journal of Research in all Subjects in
Multi Languages, 2014.
4
http://www.academia.edu/1612400/Public_Interest_Litigation_and_environmental_law_in_India
Right To Environment Protection

The emergence of the PIL as an innovative instrument of judicial interpretation and

intervention in the 1980s led to increasing involvement of the judiciary in addressing
environmental concerns in the backdrop of the failure of state enforcement agencies to
adequately address problems of environmental pollution. identifies liberalization of locus
standi for increasing access to justice, procedural flexibility, judicial supervision to ensure
implementation of orders and creative interpretation of the Constitution as the defining
characteristics of Public Interest Litigation in India. A creative interpretation of the
Constitution to expand the scope of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 had a
considerable impact on environmental jurisprudence in India. In the Dehradun quarrying
case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of right to life under Article 21 to include right
to a clean environment with minimum disturbance of ecological balance. However, even in
the early phase of the application of Public Interest Litigation,the Court had to negotiate with
complex political questions that are inextricably linked to environmental concerns. In M C
Mehta v Union of India, the Supreme Court appointed expert committees to recommend
adequate safety measures for the functioning of the Shriram chlorine plant from which
harmful oleum gas had leaked affecting a large number of people. As the Court laid down the
conditions for the operation and reopening of the plant, it noted that a “permanent closure of
the plant” would have led to a loss of around 4000 jobs. The Court is therefore negotiating
with the larger question of livelihood concerns inextricably linked to environmental problems
in the present case. The appointment of a committee to monitor the operation and
maintenance of the plant is an attempt to implement the recommendations of the Court.
While this can be seen as a suitable mechanism of grievance redressal, it cannot be a long
term method for the successful implementation of a coherent environmental policy. Dam
(2004) observes that judicial intervention has merely led to administrative agencies
“preparing knee-jerk responses to judicial orders. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh
Samiti vs State of U.P. & Ors, the Supreme Court held that every citizen has a fundamental
right to have the enjoyment of quality of life. In Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar, the
petitioner filed a writ petition in this court by way of public interest litigation alleging that the
respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) were
polluting the river Bokaro by discharging surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry as
effluent from their washeries into river, making the river water unfit for drinking and
irrigation purposes thereby causing risk to the health of the people. The State of Bihar and the
State Pollution Control Board had failed to take appropriate steps for prevention of the
pollution. The Supreme Court held that Right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21
of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for
full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of
laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the
pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. In M.C. Mehta vs
UOI & Ors,the court held that every citizen has a right to fresh air and to live in pollution-
free environment. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action etc. vs UOI & Ors,22 the
Supreme Court held that this writ is directed against the Central Government, the State
Government and the State Pollution Control Board to perform their statutory duties on the
ground that their failure to carry out their statutory duties is seriously undermining the right
to life. The court held that if an industry is established without obtaining the requisite
permission and clearances and if the industry is continued to be run in blatant disregard of
law to the detriment of life and liberty of the citizens living in the vicinity, this Court has
power to intervene and protect the fundamental right to life and liberty of the citizens of this
country. In M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Ors,the Supreme Court has reiterated that right
to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of
enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.

Judiciary and Environmental Law: CASE STUDY(s)

From mining

R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P 5., (popularly known as Doon Valley Case) was
the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and ecological
balance which brought into sharp focus the conflict between development and conservation
and the court emphasized the need for reconciling the two in the larger interest of the country,
mining which denuded the Mussoorie Hills of trees and forests cover and accelerated soil
erosion resulting in landslides and blockage of underground water which fed many rivers and
springs in the river valley. The Court appointed an expert committee to advise the Bench on
the technical issues and on the basis of the report of the committee; the Court ordered the
closure of number of limestone quarries.

5
AIR 1985 SC 652
The Court was also conscious of the consequences of the order which rendered workers
unemployed after the closure of the limestone quarries and caused hardship to the lessees.
The Court observed that "this would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but it is a price that
has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy
environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to
them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and
environment.

In A.R.C. Cement Ltd. v, State of U.P6 the Supreme Court did not permit the cement factory
to run in the Doon Valley area where the mining operation had been stopped and in order to
restore the Doon Valley to its original character it was directed to be declared as non-
industrial. However, the government was asked to provide an alternate site for shifting the
cement factory of the petitioner.

In Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India7, the petitioner through a public interest litigation
(PIL) brought to the notice of the Court that the State Government of Rajasthan, though
professing to protect the environment by means of the notifications and declarations, was
itself permitting the degradation of the environment by authorising mining operations in the
area declared as "reserve forest". In order to protect the environment and wildlife within the
protected area, the Supreme Court issued directions that no mining operation of whatever
nature shall be carried on within the protected area.

From Shifting Of Stone Crushers

Environmental pollution is also caused by the stone-crushing activities and thus affects the
right of the citizens to fresh air and to live in pollution free environment. In M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India8 the Supreme Court issued directions for stopping mechanical stone-crushing
activities in and around Delhi, Faridabad, and Ballabhgarh complexes. However, keeping in
view the sustainable development, directions were also issued for allotment of sites in the
new "crushing zone" set up at village Pali in the State of Haryana to the stone crushers who
were directed to stop their activities in Delhi, Faridabad and Ballabhgarh complexes.

6
1993 Supp (1) SCC 57
7
1992 Supp (2) SCC 448
8
(1992)3 SCC 256
This case was relied upon and followed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ishwar Singh
v. State of Haryana9 The High Court issued the directions for closing down the stone
crushing business of those which were not situated within the identified zone. The Court
further directed that those who wanted to carry on their business of stone-crushing, should
shift to the identified zones. One of the most important directions given by the High Court
was regarding the claim of compensation for those persons who had suffered due to the
pollution caused by stone-crusher owners.

Industrial Pollution

A monumental judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court in M.C Mehta v, Union of
India10. Bhopal catastrophe is only a manifestation of the potential hazards of all chemical
industries in India, none of which are amenable to effective regulation. Hardly had the people
got out of the shock of the Bhopal disaster when a major leakage of oleum gas took place
from one of the units of Shriram Chemicals in Delhi and this leakage affected a large number
of persons both amongst the workmen and the public. In this case the Court has evolved
many principles which are new to the Indian "environmental jurisprudence". At the very
outset the Court disposed of the 'question as to whether the plant could be allowed to
recommence the operation in the present state and condition and if not what measures were
required to be adopted against the hazards of possibility of leaks, explosion, pollution of air
and water etc. for this purpose. The Court gave priority to this question because some other
important consequences were related with it which required the immediate attention. Firstly,
because about 4000 workman were thrown out of employment because of the closure of the
plant.52 Secondly, the short supply of chlorine which was being produced by the said plant
could have affected many activities in Delhi. Thirdly, the production of downstream products
would have also been seriously affected resulting to some extent in short supply of these
products. The Supreme Court appointed an expert committee to suggest certain measures to
remove the existing defects in the plant. After the Court was satisfied that all the safety and
control measures had been complied with by the management in a satisfactory manner, it was
held that pending consideration of the issue of relocation or shifting of the plant to some other
lace, the plant should be allowed to be restarted subject to certain stringent conditions and the
provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 981 should be strictly observed. It is submitted

9
AIR 1996 P. & H 30
10
AIR 1987 SC 965
that the above approach of the Supreme Court was in consonance with environment
protection and sustainable development.

In this case the Supreme Court, though deliberated upon but did not answer the question
whether private enterprises carrying inherently dangerous hazardous activities could be
considered "State" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to allow
a public interest litigationunder the writ jurisdiction. However, by allowing the writ petition
under article 32 of the Constitution, it impliedly treated the private enterprises like Sriram
Chemicals as the "State".

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v, Union of India 11, is a monumental judgment on
environment protection and sustainable development. In this case a PIL was filed alleging
environmental pollution caused by private industrial units. The PIL was filed not for issuance
of writ, order or direction against such units but against the Union of India, State Government
and State Pollution Board concerned to compel them to perform their statutory duties on
ground and that their failure to carry out their duties violated the right to life of citizens under
article 21 of' the Constitution.

In this case the industrial units were located in Bichhri village in Udaipur (Rajasthan). They
were producing certain chemicals like oleum (concentrated form of sulphuric acid) and H-
Acid etc. They had not obtained the necessary clearances/consents/ licences nor did they'
install any equipment for treatment of highly toxic effluents discharged by them. The highly
toxic effluent of these industries percolated deep into the bowls of the earth polluting the
ground water and making it unfit for drinking by human beings and cattle and for irrigating
the land. The soil became unfit for cultivation. In fact, it spread diseases, death and disaster in
the village and the surrounding areas. Some industries had closed or stopped manufacturing
of "H-Acid" yet the consequences of their action remained-the sludge, the long lasting
damage to earth, to underground water, to human beings, to cattle and the village economy.

The Supreme Court while affirming the earlier case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India held
that the contention that the respondents being private corporate bodies and not "State" within
the meaning of Article 12, a writ on under article 32 would not lie against them, cannot be
accepted. In if the Court finds that the government or authorities concerned have not the
action required of them and their inaction has affected the right to life of the citizens, it is the
duty of the Court to intervene and the Court can certainly issue the necessary directions to
11
(1996) 3 SCC 212
protect the life and liberty of the citizens.They Court has also considered the effect of Idgah
Slaughter House on ecology. In Buffalo Traders' Welfare Association v, Maneka Gandhi 12,
the court considered it as one of the hazardous industries operating in Delhi and it to stop
functioning in the city of Delhi in the interest of environment protection. It was allowed to
operate only for certain period provided certain conditions were fulfilled and that the
slaughter houses were kept clean and till the alternate site was arranged.

Shifting/ Relocation Of Hazardous And Noxious/Heavy Industries.

Industries are necessary for development. At the same time they are also a source of
environmental pollution. In order to minimise the harm of environmental pollution to the
people, the Courts have consistently taken the view that the industries must not be situated in
the populated area or near the residential area. A study of the following cases will show that
the Courts have issued the necessary directions for the shifting/relocation of the existing
hazardous/noxious/heavy industries to a separate zone marked for this purpose.The Supreme
Court in M.C. Mehta v, Union of India13, has held that in order to reduce the element of risk
to the community from industrial hazards, the Government of India should evolve a national
policy for location of chemical and other hazardous industries in areas where population is
scarce and there is little hazard or risk to the community, and when hazardous industries are
located in such areas, every care must be taken to see that large human habitation does not
grow around them. There should preferably be a green belt of 1 to 5 Km. width around such
hazardous industries.

In V. Lakshmipathy v, State14, the Karnataka High Court in a public interest litigation (PIL)
directed the Municipal Corporation to stop the industries set up in the residential area. The
Court also observed that the land which is earmarked for residential purposes should not be
used. for setting up the industries.

Tanneries And Discharge Of Effluents.

12
(1996) 11 SCC 35
13
AIR 1987 SC 965
14
AIR 1992 Kant. 57
Under the laws of the land the responsibility for treatment of the industrial effluents is that of
the industry. However, it has been noticed that various tanneries operating in different parts
of the country have not been complying with the laws of land. They have been discharging
effluents without any treatment and thus becoming one of the major sources of pollution. The
Courts in such cases have issued directions to such tanneries to either install primary
treatment plant or stop working. The judiciary in India has followed the path of sustainable
development in such cases as well.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 15 (popularly known as Ganga Water Pollution case or
Kanpur tanneries case), a public interest litigation was filed, inter alia, for the issuance of
directions restraining the tanneries from discharging trade effluent into the river Ganga till
such time they put up necessary treatment plants for treating the trade effluents in order to
arrest the pollution of water in the said river.The tanneries discharging effluents in the river
Ganga did not set up primary treatment plant in spite of being asked to do so for several
years. Nor did they care to put up an appearance in the Supreme Court expressing their
willingness to set up pre-treatment plant. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed them to
stop working. The Supreme Court further observed:“The financial capacity of the tanneries
should be considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants.
Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to
exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue
to be in existence for the adverse effect on the public at large which is likely to ensue by the
discharging of the trade effluents from the tannery to the river Ganga would be immense and
it will outweigh any inconvenience that may be caused to the management and the labour
employed by it on account of its closure”.

Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India 16 (popularly known as T.N. Tanneries
case), is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court where the principle of sustainable
development has been adopted by the Court as a balancing concept.This case was also filed
as public interest litigation (PIL) and was directed against the pollution which was being
caused by enormous discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries and other industries in
the State of Tamil Nadu. Due to untreated discharge of the effluents, entire surface- and
subsoil water of river Palar had been polluted resulting in the non-availability of the portable
water to the residents of the area. According to a survey, nearly 35/000 hectares of

15
AIR 1988 SC 1037
16
(1996) 5 SCC 647
agricultural land in the tanneries belt had become either partially or totally unfit for
cultivation. These effluents had spoiled physio-chemical properties of the soil and had
contaminated the ground water by percolation. Nearly 350 wells out of total of 467 used for
drinking and irrigation purposes had been polluted. As per the affidavits filed, on behalf of
the State of Tamil Nadu, in the Court, these tanneries and other industries were persuaded for
about ten years to control pollution generated by them. They were given the option either to
construct common treatment plants for a cluster of industries or to set up individual pollution
'control devices. The Central Government had agreed to give subsidy for the construction of
Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs). It was a pity that till the decision of the case
most of the tanneries operating in the State of Tamil Nadu had not taken any step to control
the pollution caused by the discharge of effluents. The Supreme Court had been monitoring
this petition for almost five years but failed to control the pollution generated by these
tanneries' and other industries. The Supreme Court pointed out that the traditional concept
that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. "Sustainable
Development" is the answer. The Supreme Court after explaining the salient principles of
sustainable development expressed the view that "The Precautionary Principle" and "The
Polluter Pays Principle" are essential features of sustainable development and that they have
been accepted as part of the law of the land. The Supreme Court also held that in view of the
constitutional provisions contained in Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A (g) and other statutory
provisions contained in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
it had hesitation in holding that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle
are part of the environmental law of the country.

In Urbanization Matters.

The Indian judiciary has shown its concern to the problems of urbanisation and need for
protecting and preserving the environment.In M.L. Sud v. Union of India17, it was alleged
that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was denuding the forest by cutting trees and
putting up construction and laying roads in the city forest area which was shown in the
Master Plan as "Green" and was to be maintained as city forest. The Supreme Court issued
the necessary directions to the concerned authorities for maintaining the city forest. In People

17
1992 supp (2) SCC 123
United for Better Living in Calcutta v, State of West Bengal,18the Calcutta High Court held
that it is the duty of the Court to find balance between development programme and
environment. In this case the High Court highlighted the importance of wet land and part
played by it in the proper maintenance of environmental equilibrium in the city of Calcutta.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the instance case, the High Court granted injunction
against reclamation of the wet land. It was further held that wet land are important in
maintenance of environmental equilibrium and necessary to preserve the environment.

Rights of Tribals/ Adivasis and Ecological Stability.

Tribals or Adivasis are a primitive community or pre-literate society in which kinship plays a
very important role. In India there is a .large population of tribes which is scattered in almost
all parts of country. They live in forests and use forest area as their habitat. In fact tribes and
forests are closely associated with each other. Forests are their home. Tribal people used to
have many traditional rights over forests. They earn their livelihood from forests. They
depended on forests for almost everything. They protected the forests and forest protected
them. Illegal felling, smuggling, grazing, forest fire and cutting of branches of trees for fuel
are some of the examples of the activities of the tribal which have adverse impact on the
ecosystem. In the case of Banwasi Sewa Ashram v, State 19 of U.P., the Adivasis and other
backward people (tribal forest dweller) were using forests as their habitat and means of
livelihood. Part of the forest land was declared as "reserved forest" and in respect of other
part acquisition proceedings were initiated as the government had decided that a super
thermal plant of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) was to be located
there.

In M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors 20, the Supreme Court held that Public Trust Doctrine is
a part of the law of the land, in which certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests are
a gift of nature. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect these natural resources.

In A. P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof. M. V. Nayadu & Ors 21, the Supreme Court held
that we have no hesitation in holding that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays
Principle are part of the environmental law of the country.

18
AIR 1993 Cal 215
19
AIR 1987 SC 374
20
(1997) 2 SCC 87
21
(1999) 2 SCC 718.
CONCLUSION

The increasing urbanization and rapid industrialization of contemporary India has led to a
host of grave environmental problems such as air, water, and noise pollution, it was court
through PIL which provided solutions to the problem of people instead of legislature through
PIL. So we can say Judiciary has contributed significantly to the growth of environmental
protection in India. The emergence of the Public Interest Litigation in the realm of
environmental law was necessitated by the failure of this command and control structure to
adequately address environmental concerns in India. A creative interpretation of the
Constitution to expand the scope of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 had a
considerable impact on environmental jurisprudence in India. So it was this interpretation of
the Supreme Court which heralded the era of growth of environmental jurisprudence in India
which led to incorporation of key environment doctrine in Indian legal system.

BIBLIOGRPAHY

Dr. Gurdeep Singh, Environmental and Law, Eastern Book Company,2005.

Chandra J, Public interest litigation and environmental protection. Deep & Deep Publication,
2005.
Razzaque Jona, Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Kluwer Law International, 2009.

Tiwar A K, Environmental Laws in India: Contribution of the Supreme Court. Deep & Deep
Publication, 2006.

C.M. Jariwala, “Changing Dimensions of Indian Environment Law”, 8 CULR 40-41 (1989)

Sahu Geetanjoy, Implications of indian supreme court’s innovations for environmental

jurisprudence. Law, Environment and Development Journal (2008) (http://www.lead-
journal.org/content/08001.pdf)

Dr. Upadhyay H Minal, P.I.L. and Environment Protection. International Journal of Research
in all Subjects in Multi Languages, 2014.

Jain Romi, The Indian Supreme Court as Environmental

Activist(http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/the-indian-supreme-court-as-environmental-
activist/)

Murlidhar S & Desai Ashok, Public Interest Litigatin: Potential and Problems. International
Law Research Centre, 2000.

http://www.environmentallawsofindia.com/public.html

http://himanshuaroras.blogspot.in/2013/07/role-of-judiciary-in-protection-of.html

Desai H Bharat, enforcement of the right to environment protection through public interest
litigation in India. Indian journal of international law voi.33, 1993. pp.27-
40(http://ajne2.itkeep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Enforcement-of-the-Right-to-
Environment-Protection-Through-Public-Interest-Litigation-in-India.pdf)