Judicial Interpretations

 Judicial Interpretations: The Indian judiciary has taken a major initiative towards environmental protection and sustainable development. It is due to the commitment of the judiciary that has led to the emergence of the innovative use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a tool for social and environmental justice in India. There are two ways in which judiciary has contributed to environmental protection in India.

The judiciary has not only introduced procedural innovations to provide much wider access to justice but it has included a right to a healthy environment within the ambit of the right to life’ enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution by a positive and expansive interpretation. In various cases, the judiciary has held that the basic requirement of a decent quality of life is to live in a healthy environment. 

For instance, this right was given judicial recognition in the Dehradun Lime Quarries Case (Rural Litigation and Entitlements Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1987) and reaffirmed in the Sriram Gas Leak Case (MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1987) and many other cases were decided on the same lines. Dehradun Lime Quarries Case, 1987: Letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun was treated as a Writ Petition and notices issued. The main allegations therein related to unauthorised and illegal mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie Hills and the area around adversely affecting the ecology of the area and leading to environmental disturbances. In July, 1983 this Court directed all fresh quarrying to be stopped.

Sriram Gas Leak Case, 1987: In the Shriram Gas Leakage Case, where a gas leak in the factory caused one person to die and hundreds of others were taken ill in an area adjoining Delhi, the Court ordered closure of the chlorine plant, the setting up of a victim compensation scheme and reopening of the plant under specific directions, all within a span of ten weeks of the gas leak.

Shriram Gas Leak Case, by a writ petition (12739 of 1985):-– M.C. Mehta filed a PIL to close and relocate Shriram’s caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plants away from thickly populated section of Delhi.  On December 4, 1985 one month after the filing of PIL, Oleum gas leaked out from the same complex affecting several people.

District Magistrate Delhi made order under section 133 subsection (1) of Cr.P.C., directing and requiring Shriram to cease carrying out manufacture of Hazardous and lethal chemicals including Chlorine, Oleum, etc. at their establishment at Delhi.

In its judgement the court tried to strike a balance between the requirements of employing science and technology to improve the quality of life and the elimination of risk by hazardous products of the industrial activity. Ganga Pollution Case, 1988:– In this case, the Supreme Court ordered a number of tanning (and therefore polluting) industries located on the banks of the river Ganga to either set up effluent plants or shut down. 

Moreover, the court also ordered about 5,000 industries located in the Ganga basin to install effluent treatment plants and air pollution control devices. For the implementation of its orders, the court also issued directions to the Central Government, Uttar Pradesh (UP) Pollution Control Board and the District magistrate.

Stone Crushers Case, 1992: On May 15 this year, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in response to a public interest suit demanding the closure of the 300-odd stone-crushing units in and around New Delhi. Unlicensed units were immediately closed and the rest are to be shut down by August 15. All units are to be relocated in a zone which will be created by the Haryana government at Pali village within six months 

According to M.C. Mehta, who filed the case seven years ago, “No crusher will be allowed within 2 km of the urbanise limit of Delhi.” The court held that while environmental problems were implicit in development, they could not be permitted to grow into health hazards. It also hauled up civic and pollution control authorities for failing to deal with the problem…

Environmental Awareness Case, 1992: Succeeded in getting orders from the Court that all over the country the cinema theatres will exhibit two slides free of cost on environment in each show failing which their licenses will be cancelled, a minimum 5 to 7 minutes will begiven by the television network in the country to television programmes on environment apart from giving a regular weekly programme on environment.

Environment has become a compulsory subject up to 12th standard from academic session 1992 and University Grants Commission will also introduce this subject in higher classes in different universities.

Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case, 1994: Against vehicular pollution in India the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in 1992. A retired Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed along with three members to recommend measures for the nationwide control of vehicular pollution. Orders for providing Lead free petrol in the country and for the use of natural gas and other mode of fuels for use in the vehicles in India have been passed and carried out.

Lead-free petrol had been introduced in the four metropolitan cities from April 1995; all new cars registered from April 1995 onwards have been fitted with catalytic convertors; COG outlets have been set up to provide CNG as a clean fuel in Delhi and other cities in India apart from Euro 2 norms.  As a result of this case, Delhi has become the first city in the world to have complete public transportation running on CNG.

Coastal Areas Case, 1996: Despite Coastal Zone Regulation Notification of February 1991, none of the coastal states had formulated coastal zone management plan, with the result that haphazard construction and industrial activity was being permitted anywhere in the coast leading to large scale damage to coastal ecology and loss of livelihood to lakhs of fishermen and other indigenous communities dependent on marine resources.

A writ petition was filed on behalf of Indian Council for Environment-Legal Action (ICELA) and the Supreme Court delivered a landmark Judgement banning industrial/ construction activity within 500 metres of the High Tide Line and set a time limit for the coastal states to formulate coastal management plans.

Taj Mahal Case, 1997: The Supreme Court after examining all the reports about Taj Trapezium said that there were active contributors to the air pollution in the said area. All the 292 industries were to approach/apply to the GAIL before 15.2.1997 for grant of industrial gas-connection. The industries which were not in a position to obtain gas-connections were to approach UPSIDC before 28.2.1997, for allotment of alternative plots in the industrial estates outside.

Those industries, which neither applied for gas-connection nor for alternate industrial plots should stop functioning using coke/coal as fuel in the said area w.e.f. 30.4.1997. The supply of coke/coal to these industries was stopped forthwith.

Prawn Farming Case, 1997: This case brought into force for the first time the non-implementation of the CRZ notification.  Though the notification was enacted, it was never brought into force and the petitioner filed this writ for stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas and for prohibiting use of wastelands and wetlands for prawn farming.

The petitioner also sought for the constitution of a National Coastal Zone Management Authority to safeguard the marine and coastal areas. The allegation of the petitioner was that the coastal states were allowing big business houses to develop prawn farms on a large scale in the coastal States in violation of the EPA, 1986 and various other provisions of law. Further in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangarsh Samiti v. State of UP, 1990, and in Subhash Kumar V.

State of Bihar, 1991 case, the Suprime Court emphasized that right to live include the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. The Indian judiciary adopted the technique of public interest litigation for the cause of environmental protection in many cases.  The Supreme Court and High Courts shaded the inhibitions against refusing strangers to present the petitions on behalf of poor and ignorant individuals.

The basic ideology behind adopting PIL is that access to justice ought not to be denied to the needy for the lack of knowledge or finances. In PIL a public spirited individual or organisation can maintain petition on behalf of poor and ignorant individuals. In the area of environmental protection, PIL has proved to be an effective tool.

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P.

(i) the Supreme Court prohibited continuance of mining operations terming it to be adversely affecting the environment. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India

(ii), the Supreme Court cautioned the industries discharging inherently dangerous Oleum & H acid. The Court held that such type of pollution infringes right to wholesome environment and ultimately right to life. In another case M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India

(iii) the Supreme Court held that air pollution in Delhi caused by vehicular emissions violates right to life under Article. 21 and directed all commercial vehicles operating in Delhi to switch to CNG fuel mode for safeguarding health of the people.

In Church of God in India vs. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association the Supreme Court asked the tanneries to close their business. In this manner, our judiciary has used the tool of PIL quite effectively for the cause of environmental protection. But the judiciary has shown wisdom in denying false petitions seeking to advance private interests through PIL as evident from the decision of the Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar.  Hence, PIL has proved to be a great weapon in the hands of higher courts for protection of environment and our judiciary has certainly utilized this weapon of PIL in best possible manner.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)