The Indian Judiciary, the custodian of constitution, has been giving beacon light for protection of Environment while interpretation the constitution in positive manner. Judicial Chronology is full of landmark decisions, which embarked upon that Right to life far exceeds mere breathing and walking and developed Environment Jurisprudence. Judiciary plays a vital role in the protection of environment. Here are some of the Landmark judgment on Environment Protection:

1.      Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- This case is also known as the ‘Dehradun Valley Litigation’. In Mussoorie hill range of Himalayas, the activity of quarrying was being carried out.  Limestone was extracted by blasting out the hills with dynamite. This practice has also resulted in cave-ins and slumping because the mines dug deep into the hillsides, which is an illegal practice per se. Due to lack of vegetation many landslides occurred, which killed villagers, and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural land. It was contended by the mining operators that the case should be dismissed by the court and the issue should be left to the administrative authorities under the Environment Protection but the Court rejected the miners’ arguments the ground that the litigation had already commenced and significant orders had been issued by the court before the adoption of the Environment Protection Act. Later a monitoring committee was made. Monitoring Committee directed the company in certain way but the lessee continued to quarry limestone in an unscientific manner and in disregard of the directions issued by the Monitoring committee. In an application filed by the committee, the court held that the mining activity secretly carried on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused immense damage to the area and directed the firm to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the fund of the Monitoring committee. After years, the Supreme Court of India has held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affects the health and safety of people and hence, the same should be stopped. The right to wholesome environment is a part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case was the first requiring the Supreme Court to balance environment and ecological integrity against industrial demands on the forest resources. The Court issued the following directions:

· Orders that mine lessees whose operations were terminated by the court would be given priority for leases in new areas open to limestone mining.

· Orders that the Eco-Task Force of the central department of Environment reclaim and reforest the area damaged by mining and that workers displaced by mine closure be given priority for jobs with the Eco-Task Force operations in the region.

2.      Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Ratlam is a city in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. Some of the residents of the municipality filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and there is stench and stink caused by the exertion by nearby slum-dwellers and that there was nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district instructed the municipality to prepare a proper development plan within 6 months of the complaint submitted by the residents of Ratlam city (approved by High Court). Afterwards the municipality came in appeal before the apex court of India and alleged that they do not have proper financial support as well as proper funds to comply with the direction given by the sub divisional magistrate of Ratlam city. Respondents argued that the Municipality of Ratlam city had failed to meet its obligations given by the sub divisional magistrate to provide for public health including by failing to abate pollution and other hazardous waste from impacting their homes. Respondents focused to stop pollution caused by a runoff from a nearby alcohol plant resulting in form of malaria. The Supreme Court instructed the Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately follow order given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city to protect the area from pollution caused by alcohol plant flowing into the neighboring areas of the resident. Supreme court also ordered the municipal to take necessary steps to  fulfill their obligation by providing adequate number of public laterals for specifically men and women separately along with to provide water supply and scavenging service in morning as well as in evening to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered that these obligations to be fulfilled within six months of court order.   The problem was due to private polluters and haphazard town planning, it was held by Supreme Court that pollution free environment is an integral part of right to life under Article 21. The Court Further held that in case municipality feel the need of resources then it will raise its demand from State government by elitist projects, request loans from the State Government from the savings account of public health expenditure to fulfill the resource requirement for the implementation of courts order.

3.      M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (Gas Leak In Shriram Factory); Supreme Court of India

Judgment- On the midnight of 2/3-12, 1984; there was a leakage of poisonous gas (methyl isocyanate) from Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This disaster was described as “World’s worst industrial disaster” as it claimed the lives of 2260 people and caused serious injuries with a variety of complications to about 6 lakhs of people. When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, another gas disaster took place from Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries (belonging to Delhi Textile Mills Ltd.), Delhi on 4th and 6th December 1985. One advocate died and several others injured. MC Mehta, a leading legal practitioner, Supreme Court filed a “public interest litigation” petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court through P.N. Bhagwati, C.J., keeping in mind the one-year-old great gas disaster of Bhopal, evolved a new rule, “Absolute Liability” in preference to 1868 rule of Strict Liability. Issues Raised were- Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not?

If not, what measures are required to be taken to prevent the leakages, explosions, air and water pollution? To find out the number of safety devices exists in the plant and others though necessary is not installed in the plant. Court held that the “absolute liability” of a hazardous chemical manufacturer to give compensation to all those affected by an accident was introduced in this case and it was the first time compensation was paid to victims. The court laid down following principles- The management, Shri Ram Foods was required to deposit in the court, Rs. 20 lakhs as security for payment of compensation to the victims. A green belt of 1 to 5 K.M. widths around such industries should be provided. The court directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court consisting of a Judge and two experts (Ecological Sciences Research Experts) as members to assist the judge in deciding the environmental cases. Pursuant upon the recommendation, the Govt. of India passed the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 to deal with the cases of environmental pollution.

4.      M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Ganga Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- In 1985, M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition in the nature of mandamus to prevent these leather tanneries from disposing of the domestic and industrial waste and effluents in the Ganga River. In this petition, the petitioner requested the court to request the Supreme Court (the Court) to restrain the respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till the time they incorporate certain treatment plants for the treatment of toxic effluents to arrest water pollution. The Court highlighted the importance of certain provisions in our constitutional framework, which enshrine the significance and the need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A provides that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. The Court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act). This act was passed to prevent and control water pollution and maintaining water quality. This act established central and stated boards and conferred them with power and functions relating to the control and prevention of water pollution. Now, the question was raised that what is Trade Effluent? A Trade Effluent is any substance in the form of solid, liquid, or gaseous state which is discharged from any establishment used for carrying out any trade or industrial activity, other than domestic sewage. It was noted that the leather industry is one of the significant industries besides paper and textiles consuming large quantities of water. Most of the water used is discharged as wastewater. The wastewater contains toxic substances that deplete the Oxygen content of the clean river water in which they are discharged. This results in the death of aquatic life and emanates foul odor. The Court held the despite provisions in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Act no effective steps were taken by the State Board to prevent the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga. Also, despite the provisions in the Environment Protection Act, no effective steps were taken by the Central Government to prevent the public nuisance caused by the tanneries at Kanpur. In a historic judgment in 1987, the court ordered the closure of a number of polluting tanneries near Kanpur. The court held that- “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.” The Court ordered the tanneries to establish primary treatment plants, if not Secondary treatment plants. That is the minimum which the tanneries should do in the circumstances of the case.

5.      Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed against the excessive pollution caused by River Palar due to the release of pollutants by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. Palar River is the main source of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding people. Later, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore discovered that approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land have turned either entirely or partially unsuitable for cultivation. This is one of the landmark cases whereby the Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship between environment and industrial development. The question which emerged for thought under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court was whether the tanneries ought to be permitted to keep on working at the expense of lives of lakhs of individuals. It was presented by the petitioner that the whole surface and sub-soil water of river Palar has been intoxicated and has resulted in the non-accessibility of consumable water to the inhabitants of the region. The Supreme Court analyzing the report conveyed its judgment putting forth all attempts to keep up a concordance among condition and improvement. The Court conceded that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign exchange earner and furthermore gives work to a large number of individuals. In any case, at the equivalent time, it wrecks nature and represents a wellbeing danger to everybody. The court conveying its judgment in favor of the petitioner guided all the Tanneries to submit a whole of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the Collector’s office. The Court additionally coordinated the State of Tamil Nadu to grant Mr. M. C. Mehta with an entirety of Rs. 50,000 as gratefulness towards his endeavors for the security of the Environment.

6.      A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- In this case the respondent industry is ought to be establishing a new factory for the production of vegetable oils in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent industry purchased a piece of land in Indore village named Peddashpur. Within the range of the village the reservoirs that provides drinking water for the 5 million of people around the area. Issues raised were- The validity of the orders passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board? The correctness of the orders of the Appellate Authority under section 28 of the Water Act, 1974? The validity of exemption granted for the operation of the 10 k.m. rule? In what ways that the technological aspects of the environmental law cases ought to be adjudicated? In the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court relied on the judicial doctrine of the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle as it is very name suggests needs the authorities in charge to anticipate, prevent and attack the reason behind environmental pollution. This rule is based on the salutary theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and safety than in the wrong way wherever environmental damage, once done, is also irreversible. In other words, one ought to take measures in anticipation of environmental damage, instead of to hunt cure when the damage is inflicted. It would be better to stay safe earlier then be sorry later. Hindrance is healthier than cure. The Court in the present judgment directed that the authority to be appointed under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 that shall implement the Precautionary Principle and also the Polluter Pays Principle. Further, it had been discovered that the new conception envisages that when a risk of great or irreversible damage to the environment is perceived, the burden of proof lies on the one that is proposing to undertake the activity in question.

7.      M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The Indian Express published an article reporting that a private company, Span Motels Private Ltd. (‘the Motel Company’), owner of Span Resorts, had floated an ambitious project called Span Club. Kamal Nath who was the Minister of Environment and Forests had direct links with this company. The company encroached upon 27.12 big has of land which also included forest land. The land was regularized and subsequently leased out to the company on 11th April 1994. Issues raised were- Whether the court has wrongly inducted Mr. Kama Nath as a Respondent in the present petition? Whether the construction activity carried out by the Motel Company justified? The Supreme Court rejected this contention and held that the forest lands which have been given on lease to the Motel by the State Governments are situated at the bank of the river Beas. The Beas is a young and dynamic river and it changes its course very often. The right bank of the river is where the Motel is located comes under forest. The area is ecologically fragile and therefore it should not be converted into private ownership. The Supreme Court applied the ‘Doctrine of Public Trust’ to the present case. Doctrine of Pubic trust is an ancient legal doctrine which states that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. Therefore- The Court quashed the lease-deed by which forested land was leased to the Motel Company and held that the construction activity carried out by the Motel Company was not justified. The Motel was ordered to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environmental and ecology of the area. The Motel was ordered to construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 meters for the building of the motel beyond which they were not allowed to use the land of the river basin. The Court restricted the Motel from discharging untreated effluent into the river. Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board was directed to inspect and keep a check.

8.      M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Vehicular Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Union Territory of Delhi has a total population of 96 lakhs. Out of this population approximately 90 lakh people reside in urban areas. At the time of independence the population of Delhi was around 5 lakh. In nearly 40 years, it multiplied by 19 times. This writ petition was filed by M.C. Mehta requesting the court to pass appropriate orders for the reduction of Vehicular Pollution in Delhi. Supreme Court in this case held that Indian constitution recognizes the importance of protection of environment, life, flora and fauna by the virtue of Article 51-A and Directive principles of state policy. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to protect the environment and all the persons using automobiles should have a fair idea of the harmful effects on the environment due to emissions caused by their vehicles.  A committee was setup to look in to the problem and decide on what can be done. The committee was setup with the following objectives –

• To make an assessment of the technologies available for vehicular pollution control in the world;
• To make an assessment of the current status of technology available in India for controlling vehicular pollution;
• To look at the low cost alternatives for operating vehicles at reduced pollution levels in the metropolitan cities of India.
• To examine the feasibility of measures to reduce/eliminate pollution from motor vehicles both on short term and long term basis and make appropriate recommendations in this regard;
• To make specific recommendations on the administrative/legal regulations required for implementing the recommendations.

The committee was ordered to give reports in two months and also mention the steps taken.

9.      Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed by the way of Public Interest Litigation by Subhash Kumar for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the discharge of sludge/slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution. The State Pollution Control Board failed to take actions against the Company and permitted the pollution of the water and the State of Bihar instead of taking actions, it is granting a lease on the payment of royalty for collection of slurry to various persons. Issue raised was whether the water of the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of the slurry from the Company? The apex court held that the right to get pollution free water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21. Following this, the right to pollution free environment was incorporated under the head of right to life and all the laws courts within the Indian Territory were bound to follow. Public health and ecology were held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the constitution of a green bench was also ordered by the Supreme Court. The Tata Iron & Steel Co. has been granted sanction from the Board for discharging effluents from their outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Before granting the discharge of the effluents to the Bokaro River, the Board has analyzed and monitored that the effluents generated did not pollute the river. It was clear from the facts that and pleadings on behalf of the Respondent that there was no good reason to accept Petitioner’s contentions that the water of Bokaro River was polluted by the discharge of slurry/sludge from the respondent Company, on the other hand, the bench found that effective steps were taken by State Pollution Control Board to check pollution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

10.  Samit Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- In this case, an environmentalist filed an application regarding the damage caused by the sinking of a ship which was carrying coal, fuel oil and diesel. Due to the sinking, a thick oil layer was formed on the surface of the sea which caused damage to the marine ecosystem. This case was held to involve questions of public importance and significance of environmental jurisprudence. The tribunal noticed the negligence. The sinking of the ship was the result of the negligence of the Respondents and upholding the principle of Polluter Pay. The Tribunal has further held that it has power to grant compensation for the costs incurred by the Central Government to clean the wrecks which may pose hazards to navigation and to marine environment. The Court thereby reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. The Tribunal held that the ship sinking accident is said to have led to the pollution of the marine environment on three counts: (a) Dumping of the cargo on the ship, i.e., coal in to the sea; (b) Release of the Fuel oil stored on board and the resultant oil spill caused by it and (c) wreckage of the ship itself, which contained the materials. In the present case, the ship used in the transport is unseaworthy and the respondents should have never used the ship for transport purpose. Therefore, in the present case, sinking of the ship is held equivalent to dumping. Environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores was imposed. This is one of the biggest compensation ever made by private entity to government.

11.  Ms. Betty C. Alvares v. The State of Goa and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- A complaint regarding various instances of illegal construction in the Coastal Regulation Zone of Candolim, Goa was made by a personal of foreign nationality. Her name was Betta Alvarez. The first objection was that Betty Alvarez had no locus standi in the matter because she was not an Indian citizen and thus legally incompetent to file the petition under Article 21 because as a non-citizen, she has not been guaranteed any right under the Indian Constitution. The second objection was that the matter was barred by the law of limitation and should be dismissed. The case was initiated in the Honorable High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa in the form of a PIL but by an order dated Oct 23, 2012, the Writ Petition was transferred to the National Green Tribunal. Therefore The Tribunal in bold terms stated that even assuming that the Applicant – Betty Alvarez is not a citizen of India, the Application is still maintainable as she had filed several other writ petitions and contempt applications before she filed the present application, in which she had asserted that the Respondents had raised some illegal constructions by way of which they were encroaching the sea beaches along with governmental properties. The Court laid down in very bold terms that once it is found that any person can file a proceeding related to the environmental dispute, Ms. Betty’s application is maintainable without regards to the question of her nationality.

12.  Art of Living Case on Yamuna Flood Plain; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- The National Green Tribunal (NGT) held the Art of Living Foundation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar responsible for the alleged damage caused to the Yamuna floodplains due to the World Cultural Festival organized in March 2016. NGT Panel found that the organizers of the Art of Living Festival violated the environmental norms and it has severely damaged the food plane area at the bank of Yamuna River in Delhi. Earlier, the Government of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has permitted the Art of living festival organizers but it was an under some conditions. The NGT panel imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on Art of Living Foundation as environmental compensation after coming down heavily on the foundation for not disclosing its full plans. The panel also warned AOL Foundation that in case of failure to pay the penalized amount the grant of Rs.2.5 crore which the ministry of culture is supposed to pay AOL will be attached. While reacting with dismay to the verdict, the Art of Living Foundation expressed disappointment and claimed that it had complied with all environment laws and norms and its’ submissions were not considered by NGT. The Art of Living Foundation said in a statement that-“We will appeal to Supreme Court. We are confident that we will get justice.”

13.  -Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- The Save Mon Region Federation, on behalf of the Monpa indigenous community, challenged the environmental clearance granted for the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Naymjang Chhu River.  The Federation pointed to faults in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure and a lack of close scrutiny of the project by the expert appraisal committee (EAC). The National Green Tribunal concluded: “It is true that hydel power project provides eco friendly renewable source of energy and its development is necessary, however, we are of the considered view that such development should be ‘sustainable development’ without there being any irretrievable loss to environment. We are also of the view that studies done should be open for public consultation in order to offer an opportunity to affected persons having plausible stake in environment to express their concerns following such studies. This would facilitate objective decision by the EAC on all environmental issues and open a way for sustainable development of the region.” Therefore, the project was close to a wintering site for a bird Black-necked Crane, which is included under Schedule I species under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. It also comes under the ‘Threatened Birds of India’ literature by the appellants in this case. It also had other endangered species such as the red panda, snow leopard, etc. The tribunal gave orders to suspend the clearance for the project. It also directed the EAC to make a new proposal for environmental clearance. The tribunal also directed the Ministry of Environment and Forest in the country to prepare a study on the protection of the bird involved in the case.

14.  Almitra H. Patel & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- This case has been the biggest case dealing with the solid waste in India. In this case, Mrs. Almitra Patel and another had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court whereby the Petitioner sought the immediate and urgent improvement in the practices that are presently adopted for the way Municipal Solid Waste or garbage is treated in India. The Tribunal found that the magnitude of the problem was gigantic because over a lakh tonnes of raw garbage is dumped every day and there is no proper treatment of this raw garbage which is dumped just outside the city limits on land, along highway, lakes. The Tribunal noted the requirement of conversion of this waste into a source of power and fuel to be used for society’s benefit, taking into consideration the Principles of Circular Economy. The tribunal considered it one of the major problems faced by India over the last few years as lakh tonnes of garbage go without proper treatment and just dumped outside the city in the outskirts. The tribunal noted the requirement to solve this problem and make it a source of power for the benefit of society. After hearing the case the tribunal issued over 25 directions. The tribunal asked all the states and UTs to strictly follow and implement the Solid Management Rules, 2016. A complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands was made after the case. Absolute segregation has been made mandatory in waste to energy plants and landfills should be used for depositing inert waste only and are subject to bio-stabilization within 6 months. The most important direction of the Tribunal was a complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfills.

15.  K.M. Chinnappa, T.N.  Godavarnam v. Union of India & ors. ; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The court held that- Environmental law is an instrument to protect and improve the environment and to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. In view of the enormous challenges thrown by the industrial revolutions, the legislatures throw out the world are busy in this exercise. In a number of cases, sentences of imprisonment have been imposed. Apart from the direct cost to business of complying with the stricter regulatory controls, the potential liabilities for non compliance are also increasing. In the present case the Forest Advisory Committee under the Conservation Act on 11/07/2001 examined the renewal proposal in respect of the Company’s mining lease. The Ministry of Environment and Forests deferred a formal decision on the said recommendation as the matter was pending before this court. Taking note of factual background, it is proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which the time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfillment of the recommendations made by the Committee on ecological aspects.  Before, we part with this case; note that with concern that the State and Central Government were not very consistent. Whatever be the justification, it was but imperative due application of mind should have been made before taking particular stand. Certain proceedings have been initiated against the company and these proceedings shall be considered by the respective forums/courts.