PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Public Interest Litigation is a growing mechanism in India for protecting the environment. It
might be challenging to prove that a single person’s legal rights were violated in environmental
lawsuit since the parties that are impacted may be an unidentified or scattered mass of people.
Before the 1980s, the locus standi in writ jurisdictions only applied to petitions filed by people
who had experienced a violation of their protected legal rights or interests or were reasonably
likely to do so. As a result, no one else was permitted to speak on behalf of a party who had
been wronged because they would not have the locus standi necessary to file a petition.
However, the introduction of Public Interest Litigation and the reports of the Committee on
Legal Aid, which was chaired by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, led to a new
advancement in the field of environment-focused jurisprudence.
When a plaintiff seeks to enforce the legal or constitutional rights of an individual or group of
individuals who find it difficult to approach the appellate courts for redress due to poverty, a
disability, or being in a disadvantageous social or economic position, the PIL’s more lenient
procedural rules may be used. As a result, PIL is known as the tactical arm of the legal
movement and offers simple “access to justice” for the restoration of the violated human rights
of socially underprivileged groups. The use of contaminated water, vehicle emissions, the ban
on tree cutting in forests, projects that result in environmental pollution, the conversion of
public parks into for-profit hospitals, and other environmental petitions under PIL have all been
addressed by appellate courts in India using this novel strategy.

MEANING OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:

A technique or method called public interest litigation (PIL) focuses on the country’s citizens.
PIL or Public Interest Litigation, is a type of lawsuit used to protect or enforce the public
interest. An individual’s or group’s interest that has an impact on their legal obligations or rights
is said to be in the public interest. Financial interest could be a part of it.
There is no definition of PIL in any Indian statute. The PIL has been construed and defined by
courts, nevertheless. In the case of Janata Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary AIR 1993 SC 892, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that that lexically, the term “PIL” refers to a legal
action initiated in a court of law to uphold a public or general interest when the general public
or a specific class of the public has an interest (including a financial interest) that affects their
legal rights or obligations.
Due to their many benefits, such as quick results, low court costs, lax procedural rules, and the
wide range of investigative techniques available to courts like special committees, PILs are
thought to be the most efficient as well as the most frequently used judicial tool to protect the
environment.

EVOLUTION OF PIL IN INDIA:

In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India(1980) AIR 344(1980) AIR 344, the
Court reaffirmed that greater flexibility was required since there was a higher risk of legal
standing being abused as bureaucratic power rose. The definition of locus standi was expanded
to account for the socio-economic justice movement’s growing reach.
Public Interest Litigation in India was founded by Justice Krishna Lyser in Mumbai Kamagar
Sabha, Bombay v. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors. (1976) AIR 1455, in the year of
1976. The case included giving bonuses to an industry’s workers. It was initiated in National
Federation of Railway v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) WP (civil) 507 of 1992, in which
the right to file a writ petition for the resolution of common grievances was granted to
employees.
The first Public Interest Litigation case in India was filed in 1979 and focused on the treatment
of convicts who were awaiting trial. In Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State
of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369, the PIL was filed in response to the predicament of thousands of
Bihar jail inmates awaiting trial. The hearings had an impact on the release of over 40,000
convicts awaiting trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to swift justice in cases involving
the greater good of society is a Fundamental Right that falls under the purview of the “life” and
“personal liberty” protected by Article 21. In succeeding cases, the same predetermined pattern
was used.
In the case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors (1981) AIR 1982 SC 149, heard by
Justice P.N Bhagawati, according to a judgment, any member of society seeking compensation
for the breach of their legal rights but unable to appear in court may use the Supreme Court’s
or High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction. PIL was transformed into a potent tool for carrying out public
duties by this judgement. As a result, any citizen may now approach the court to seek redress
when the general public’s interests are at risk. Even routine letters from people with a concern
for the public were treated as writ petitions by Justice Bhagwati.
In the case of Anil Yadav & Ors v. State of Bihar & Anr. (1982) AIR 1008 held in 1981,
exposed the police brutality. About thirty-three victims were brutally burned in the eyes by acid
thrown by the police at the Bhagalpur jail in Bihar. The Bihar government was directed to
transfer the blinded persons to Delhi for medical treatment at state expense after the Supreme
Court harshly criticised the police. The Supreme Court determined free legal representation to
be a fundamental right and a component of the right to life and personal freedom.
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Ors. (1982) AIR 1473, under
Article 32, an organization working to protect the democratic rights of persons who were
labourer working on Asiad projects and complained of labour law violations was brought
before the Supreme Court. In the current case, Justice P N Bhagwati emphasised that a PIL is
not brought before the court solely to enforce one person’s rights against another, as is the
situation with regular, traditional litigation. Instead, it is brought to defend the group rights of
a group of people who have had their fundamental rights violated.

ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES:

Although the PIL concept is not covered by any statutes or regulations, it might be seen as an
innovation due to judicial activism. Justice is better served as a result of the judiciary’s
significant contribution to the development of the litigation’s scope.
Even a single letter from any person can be viewed as a writ petition, Justice Bhagwati noted,
and rules, laws, and procedures may not always be the first concern when it comes to justice.
However, there is another component to this theory. Between judicial activism and judicial
overreach, there is a very fine line. If the Court exercises its authority by engaging the public,
or one may say Suo Moto, it might be seen as more of an interference than an act of justice. It
might be claimed that PIL cases are of relatively less relevance because they largely ignore the
administrative part of justice and concentrate on situations where compensation is typically
awarded as a remedy.
LANDMARK CASES OF PIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. AIR 1985 SC 652: This PIL case,
also known as the Doon Valley case, is significant. The conflict started because of excessive
mining in steep areas. RLEK and a group of residents appealed to the Supreme Court in this
case to stop the progressive mining that was affecting the Mussoorie tree and forest cover and
accelerating soil erosion that caused landslides and ground water blockages. The Court ordered
the valley to be reforested and all mines to be closed.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 AIR 965: When gas spilled from the plant of Shriram
Foods and Fertilizer Industries, several people were injured. The victims of the gas leak were
heard and were successful in seeking damages through PIL. The supreme court consistently
emphasised that the right to clean air and water is part of the Indian Constitution’s Article 21’s
right to life.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1991 SCC (2) 353: Delhi is union territory with 96 lakh people
living there. Approximately 90 Lakh of this population live in urban regions. M.C. Mehta
submitted this case, pleading for the court to issue the proper directives to lessen traffic
pollution in Delhi. The Supreme Court mandated that the Central government take action to
introduce environment as a required subject in educational institutions and to convey
information and awareness about it through audio-visual media. It was believed that it was the
responsibility of the government to prevent vehicle pollution from contaminating the air.
Reiterating that the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental human right, the Supreme
Court said that the right to clean air is also protected by Article 21, which is related to the right
to life.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2715: In the present
case, there was a dispute regarding various tanneries in the Tamil Nadu state. The primary
source of drinking water, the river Palar, was being polluted by these tanneries. The Supreme
Court mandated that a body be established and given all the authority it needs to handle the
matter. The supreme court examined the study before rendering its decision, attempting to
maintain a balance between development and the environment. The Court acknowledged that
these tanneries in India are the country’s main source of foreign cash and that they employ
thousands of people. However, it also poses a health risk to everyone and destroys the
ecosystem.
After ruling in favour of the petitioners, the court ordered all tanneries to deposit Rs. 10,000 in
the collector’s office as a fine. The court additionally ordered the government of Tamil Nadu
to give Mr. M.C. Mehta a reward of Rs. 50,000 in recognition of his efforts to safeguard the
environment. The court in this case also emphasises the Green Benches Constitution in India,
which primarily deals with issues connected to environmental protection, as well as for quick
and efficient resolution of environmental challenges.
In Re Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest Case 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1322: Aarey colony,
also referred to as the “green lung of Mumbai”, is a Goregaon suburb. The Sanjay Gandhi
national park and this gorgeous area together include more than five lakh trees. While a project
to build a new vehicle shed is in the works, several trees are being cut down to make area for
the aforementioned metro project. In a letter to C.J.I. Ranjan Gogoi, the law students pleaded
with him to order the state administration to stop felling trees. The Supreme Court took suo
motu cognizance of the letter and registered it as a PIL. The Maharashtra government was told
by the supreme court not to remove any more trees in Mumbai’s Aarey forest. The Court ruled
that if it
is illegal to cut down trees, they cannot be cut down at all. For the Mumbai Metro car shed, the
Supreme Court ordered the status quo on tree chopping.

CONCLUSION:
Greater advancements in the field of environmental law were made in 1976. The Stockholm
Declaration has inspired emerging nations to approach environmental issues differently. It
needs an overall shared perspective. Since 1982, the idea of PIL has grown in significance.
This occurred as a result of the justice P N Bhagwati’s acknowledgment. The Supreme Court
has since intervened to help the underprivileged. There was no comprehensive law in place
until 1986. After fourteen years, the Stockholm Conference resulted in the creation of the
Environment Protection Act in 1986.
The government was not very concerned with environmental issues at the time. Additionally,
during this time period, a number of new enterprises emerged and the pollution issue started to
progressively worsen. Due to the state agencies’ failure to implement appropriate
environmental protection measures, various environmentalist and non-governmental
organisations were compelled to file legal complaints. PIL is the most efficient way for them
to contact the court. These environmental challenges have been properly addressed by the
Indian judiciary. The judiciary made several attempts to manage the tension between
development and the environment. As a result, it can be said that public interest litigation has
helped India’s environmental law develop.