LAW MANTRA

THINK BEYOND OTHERS

(National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 23216417)

LEGAL SCRUTINY OF INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIONS

This paper evaluates the India legal system for the protection of environment and attempts to highlight the shortcomings in the legislations which result in the inefficient protection of environment. The assessment is done on three predominant legislations for environment protection viz. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is highlighted that the whole legal and administrative framework for environment protection derives its origin from these statutes. The powers under these statutes are too wide and are used for various political motives rather than for environment protection. Further, there are huge financial and technical hurdles that need be crossed. It seems that the legislations for control and protection of environment are not meant to be implemented at all. Apart from that, the rule of law is also being abused as none of the constitutional obligations of the state are being fulfilled in respect of environment protection. The fundamental rights conferred on the citizens of India by the constitution also include the right to a clean and healthy environment. Hence, it is the duty of the state to provide a framework which delivers these rights to the citizens in reality. Here, the framework has failed. In addition to statutory loopholes, there are loopholes in the economic model itself which ignores the majority of the population and compels this majority to live in a highly degraded environment. The cruel combination of this devastating economic model and the highly faulty provisions is not helping the cause of environment in any way. The paper also assesses the role of judiciary in filling the voids in the environment protection machinery. A lot more is expected from the judiciary and it is also expected to urge the legislature to plug the loopholes. The paper also suggests a mechanism to remove many lacunae and make the legal framework for the environment more efficient and transparent.

1. PILOT EMERGENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL J URISPRUDENCE IN INDIA

The environmental jurisprudence in India finds its genesis since the ancient times in the Hindu and Islamic texts. Even the Indian and Mughal rulers included the environmental perspective in

their policy formations.1 In the post- independence era, the Government of India adopted environment protection objection in its legislations. The Factories Act, 1948, was passed with the purpose to provide for the safety of workers discharge of pollutants and occupational health of workers. In the same manner Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, was passed which aimed at proper citing of industries with environmental protection view. The Mines act, 1952, also dealt with safety of mining activities and health and well being of workers. Other legislations like Prevention of Food Adulteration Act passed to protect endangered health; the Insecticides Act, 1968, passed to regulate the manufacture, sale, transport and use of insecticides in agriculture which cause formidable threat to the environment. Since, the Common Law of England which was introduced by the Britishers in India continued to exist today by virtue of Article 371A and hence, tort actions for environmental pollution are also in force.2 Article 48A; 51A(g) etc also have bearing on sustainable development and environment protection. The 91 of Code of Civil Procedure and 33 of Criminal Procedure Code also stipulates provisions of abatement of environmental pollution.

The Indian Government also became conscious of dangers of environmental pollution after 1960s. In the Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-74) issues related to environmental pollution were highlighted. In which obligation to protect and preserve environment air, water, land, wildlife etc was imposed upon the people.3 The Fifth and Sixth Five Year Plan focuses on the sustainable development after the participation of India at Stockholm Conference wherein the issues of development and environment were dealt.

Although there are over two hundred central and state legislations that have bearing on environmental protection but to keep the work within feasible limits only three legislations i.e. the Air Act; Water Act and Environment Protection Act has been dealt with.

2. LEGAL SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION EFFECTIVE OR C ONTRADICTORY DRAFTING

The Indian legal system has the rule of law mechanism as its four corners. In the modern times, every issue is sought to be handled either by the provisions already contained the statute books, or by enacting new laws. But the problem at hand is that only the enactment of these legal
1 2

ASMIN ROSENCRANZ, SHAM DIMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN INDIA (1991). DR. VIKAS V ASHISHTH, LAWS & PRACTICE OF ENVIRONEMNTAL LAWS IN INDIA (2ND ED. 2002). 3 MOHAMMED N ASIM , ENIRONEMNTAL LAWS IN INDIA (2004).

provisions is far from sufficient to deal with the problems of national importance. The case of environmental issues is no different. The laws enacted for the protection of the environment have, in ground reality, miserably failed to address environmental problems. It has been 40 years since the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 came into force and after that the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 followed. The question that arises is- why is the environmental degradation constantly rising in spite of these acts being in operation? The answer is lack of implementation or no implementation at all. If the mere enactment of laws can ensure a clean environment, perhaps India would be pollution-free.4 Many provisions of these laws are prima facie flawed and seem to be drafted as if these were not meant to be implemented at all. Rather, on application of legal mind, these provisions appear to be tools of convenience just to appease people. Adding to these provisions, the lack of institutional will, lack of funds for implementation of laws, lack of technical expertise, superficial judicial intervention and mostly corruption have worsened the case of environment protection.

2.1. Flawed Statutory Provisions The provisions of the legislations regarding environment protection are not precise and leave most of the decisions on administrative discretion. Under the rule of law mechanism, the law says too little and leaves the rest to the government to decide. This is a huge lacuna which makes space for corrupt practices which are very hard to check by the legal system itself.

Sec.3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 confers power on central government to take measures to protect and improve environment. Moreover, the central government also has the power to give directions5 and to make rules to regulate environment protection.6 These directions and guidelines are present in the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Schedules I - IV of these rules provide emission guidelines for different kinds of industries. But the allowed emission levels need revision in the present scenario. The number of industries has risen drastically and the focus should not be on the individual emission of industries but on the cumulative emission of pollutants. But these rules again are subject to administrative discretion and continue to be in force as they were several years ago.

Under the Water Act, the state government has the power to restrict the application of this Act

4 5

Indian Council of Enviro-Legal action vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1446. Environment Protection Act 5 (1986). 6 Environment Protection Act 6 r/w 25 (1986).

only to certain areas of the state. The act lays down that: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government, after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, the State Board, is of opinion that the provisions of this Act need not apply to the entire State, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, restrict the application of this Act to such area or areas as may be declared therein as water pollution, prevention and control area or areas and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall apply only to such area or areas.7

If the state government declares areas where this act would not apply, there will be no remedy against water pollution in those areas if the industries emit more effluents than the permitted limit. The remedy will become extinct in light of Sec. 24(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This section provides that where any act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and any other law, then, the offender guilty of such offence shall be liable to be punished under the other Act and not under this Act. The discharge of effluents in excess of the permitted limits constitutes such an offence. Hence, the person should be punished according to the provisions of the Water Act. But in areas where the Water Act is made inoperative, no remedy exists. Therefore, it is quite evident that these provisions leave the law wanting to be implemented in the hands of the government.

2.2. Lack of Accountability and Consent Procedure The provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 leave the custody of the environment to Central Government. Even though powers have been devolved to the Central Pollution Control Board to take action, the central government has the power of revoking such actions rendering the CPCB devoid of any legal authority.

Ironically though, it appears that the State Pollution Control Boards have a free run regarding implementation. A specific example is the manner in which SPCBs implement the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. Every person, before establishing an industry which may discharge any effluent into a stream of water, needs to take consent from the State Board.8 But in case the board does not grant or refuse to grant such consent within four months of such application, the consent is deemed to be given unconditionally. 9

7 8

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 19 (1974). The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 25(1) (1974). 9 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 25(7) (1974).

These provisions apply to the consent procedure for industries. While setting up additional facilities for trade effluent discharges, consents need to be obtained from the SPCB. Without a speedy and effective mechanism of granting consents, the SPCBs turn a blind-eye, and without being questioned by the Ministry or CPCB, willfully allow many industries to enjoy deemed consent status. In a related enforcement slackness, often conditions are placed by the Board before such a consent is granted. Owing to the non-compliance with such conditions, the consent is not renewed by SPCB and industries continue to function illegally. In such a situation, SPCBs do not act speedily to check violating industries and allow escalation of water pollution.10 Thus Parliamentary Committee rightfully concludes that, The committee feels that our experiment with the existing framework/model i.e. simultaneous existence of two parallel Boards one at the Central and the other at the State levels each one working as independent and autonomous entity in its own capacity with no central authority to command and control, has led us to nowhere over the last 33 years11

2.3. Criticism of the Role of Courts Given this era of poor implementation, the Supreme Court of India has stepped in or has been looked up to time and again for improving implementation. This judicial activism led ad-hoc implementation has, over the years, transformed the role of the courts to that of a policy maker, and even an educator.12 In the case of environmental legislation, it becomes abundantly clear with the saga of implementation of hazardous waste management in the country where the Supreme Court, for many years, donned the role of implementer to discipline polluting industries.13

Courts enforcing the law by calling upon the implementers to do their duties, by disciplining industries, through imposition of penalties, by awarding compensation and by-and-large allowing judicial activism to flourish through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have all been welcomed. Nevertheless, there have been criticisms of such court-led implementation in

10

Citizens Action, Water Pollution and Public Health - An analysis of administrative and implementation dimensions; Report, Department of Politics & Public Administration, University of Madras, Foundation for Sustainable Development, IIT Madras, Chapter 5, pp 97-98. 11 192nd report of The Parliamentary Committee on Science & Technology and Environment and Forests on Functioning of the Central Pollution Control Board, 2012 (April 7th 2014) Available at http://164.100.47.5:8080/committeereports/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20S%20and%20T,%2 0 nv.%20and%20Forests/192%20Report%20CPCB.htm#A4 12 Divan, Shyam & Rosencranz, Armin; Environmental law and policy in India; 2nd edition; OUP; 2002; p.1 13 Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v. Union of India and ors., Writ Petition No.657/95

environmental issues.

The first criticism is that of the Supreme Court itself. In the Bhopal gas leak case, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment which can be criticized on multiple grounds. Firstly, the hearings took place in closed chambers against the principles of natural law. Many evidences with the CBI were not disclosed in the name of Public Interest and National Security. Secondly, the compensation was too less considering the damage to the environment and the lives of thousands of people. The next criticism is that all problems are not addressed, even while the PILs have been made procedurally easy to file and argue. In the cases of closure of industries, legal practitioners are of opinion that neither all the industries likely to be affected, nor the workmen employed in the industries were heard while passing orders, as a result of which the aggrieved parties flooded the court with petitions taking up a huge portion of the courts time.14

2.4. Lack of Funds and Technology The CPCB and the state boards are heavily reliant on the funds directly provided by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The SPCBs especially receive only marginal funding from the Central Government and mostly through specific projects to be executed at a state level. According to the CPCB15, the SPCBs are dependent on the reimbursement of cess/tax collected under the Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act and other consent and authorization fees imposed on industries. The departments of Environment at the State level also face a similar problem, being unable to enforce laws due to inadequate financial support.16 The significant statutes are not backed up with funding support, thereby all the above activities necessary for their effective implementation do not quite enthuse the implementing agencies.

The growing number of industries, the increasing types of industries and the growing number of functions of the Boards dictate an urgent need for capacity building within the SPCBs and the CPCB. While three separate initiatives with World Bank assistance (including the Environmental Management Capacity Building (EMCB) program) are under way, the results
14

Desai, Ashok H., Muralidhar S.; Public Interest Litigation Potential and problems; International Environmental Law Research Centre; Available at http://www.ielrc.org/content/a0003.pdf 15 Frequently Asked Questions About CPCB, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2012 (April 7th 2014) Available at http://www.cpcb.nic.in/faq2.php. 16 DR SHYAM R. ASOLEKAR, PREVENTIVE ENVIRONEMNTAL MANAGEMENT: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE (2005).

of these exercises are still to materialize with respect to achieving pollution mitigation. 17 This view is echoed by the Parliamentary Committee and it has noted that multi-disciplinary training to control the various forms of pollution is not made available to the engineers of the CPCB. If the CPCB therefore is not technically competent, it would not be hard to imagine the condition of the SPCBs.18

At one level, there are reasonably sophisticated labs, equipment and infrastructure, however field-level monitoring needs to bolstered if newer pollutants and forms of pollution need to be monitored and mitigated. Some of the modern and more hazardous pollutants are still not under the radar, nor are there any standards prescribed for them. The technological gaps of the monitoring and implementing agencies can be best explained with some extracts of the report of the Parliamentary committee : out of 332 monitoring stations number of them are not onlineonly criteria pollutants (SO2, NO2, CO & SPM) are being monitored.number of other hazardous pollutants like VOCs, BTX, PAHs, PM 2.5, Ozone etc. present in the ambience are neither being monitored nor any standards been set for them. The report also mentions that, ambient air quality monitoring network should be strengthened and expandedto at least 1000 stations.

Further, the information from the monitoring stations is collected and assessed by the CPCB and shared on its website19. Such a passive form of promulgation of information may help research agendas but is not beneficial in building a pro-active agenda for mitigation. The use of modern information and communication technology tools would find favor with citizens, if pollution information is broadcasted as alerts to people informing them of the health risks in their regions.

3. SOPHISTICATED P ROVISIONS BUT LOUSY IMPLEMENTATION

The problem of environmental pollution finds its genesis in the reckless human activities of production and consumption. Indispensability of healthy and clean environment has been realized long ago by India as discussed in the first chapter. The aftermath of this realization has been the enactment of various environmental legislations like The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Environmental Protection Act, 1986; The Indian Forest Act, 1927;
17 18

WORLD BANK GROUP, ENVIRONEMNTAL SUSTAINABILITY (2008). Rajesh Rangarajan, A Review of Implementation Gaps in the Enforcement of Environmental Regulation in India, IFMR 9 19 Environemnt Data, Central Pollution Control Board of India, 2012 (April 7th 2014) Available at www.cpcbedb.nic.in.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 etc. Although the aftermath and efforts of legislators are to be praised but the real question arises as to whether such legislations have been able to bring down the pollution rates. Whether the strict provisions have been effectively implemented? Whether such legislations have been able to create an overall framework to control the reckless human activities? This chapter mainly focuses on addressing these questions.

3.1. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 & Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Now, scrutinizing the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, several provisions are laid down in the Act to implement the provisions. Chapter II of the Act provides set up of Central and State Boards for Prevention and Control of Air Pollution. The Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board constituted under 3 and 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is to perform its powers and functions under this Act too.20 However, if such State Board is not established due to non enforcement of the Water Act or non implementation, then such Board is to be constituted by notification if Official Gazette by State Government. As stipulated by Chapter III Section 16, the main function of Central Board is to improve the quality of air and to prevent, control or abate air pollution in the country. Further, they have a duty to advise Central Government in matter concerning improvement of air pollution; plan and execute nationwide policies concerning air pollution; co-ordinate activities of State Boards and provide them technical assistance and guidance etc. They also have function to plan and organize the training of persons engaged in programmes and policies and to organize comprehensive programme through mass media. The Board shall also collect, compile and publish technical and statistical data relating to air pollution; laying down standards and disseminating information in such respect. The Board, further, has also been given duty to establish and recognize laboratories for performing necessary functions under this Act.21 The State Board has been conferred same powers. Only their powers have been restricted to their respect State areas. Some specific powers are power to inspect any industrial equipment, industrial plant or manufacturing process by order at reasonable times; power to inspect air pollution control areas at reasonable intervals of time and to lay down standards for air quality in consultation with Control Board.

Therefore it can be induced that wide range of powers and functions and autonomy has been conferred upon the government. But time and again case laws have emerged wherein
20 21

The Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 3, 4 (1981). The Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 16 (1981).

inefficiency of government have been commented upon. For instance, in case of Muniswami Gowda (K) & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors,22 the State Pollution Control Board granted exemptions to certain industries. The facts of the case were such that the petitioner challenged the legality of order passed by Deputy Commissioner granting permission to owner of Rice Mill to run the mill next to house of petitioner. As per the Deputy Commissioner, such exemption was granted by the Board as they exercised their power under 17(j) which stipulates that, State Board shall do such other things and perfom such other acts as it may think necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the purposes of this Act. The Court, however, rejected this argument and stated that this section does not empower the State Board to keep any industrial unit out of the Air Act purview if it causes air pollution. Therefore, the High Court quashed the notification issued by the Board which granted the exemption declaring it to be ultra vires. Further, in the case of Damodaran Nair (V.S.) Ors v. State of Kerela & Ors, 23 public interest litigation was filed with a view to ensure healthy living and eradication of air pollution. The expert body called National Environmental Engineering Institute (NEERI) also issued several guidelines after a thorough conduct of increasing smog over Cochin. But the State Board did not adopt or implement the guidelines. The High Court directed the State Board to implement the guidelines immediately and pointed out that if the State Board is not efficient enough to carry out the research work and programme formulation itself, then it should not discard the efforts of other bodies.

Therefore, the functions of State Control Board have often been tightened up by the Courts. Pollution is a wrathful element which should not be allowed even for the slightest magnitude. However, in the case of Chaitanya Pulvarising Industry & Anr v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr,24 the State Board directed the factory causing air pollution in the premises to close down. Such prohibitory order was challenged at the Court wherein the petitioner argued the 23 stipulates taking of remedial measures before passing or prohibitory orders. However, no such remedial measures were taken. The Court ignoring the fact that pollution was caused ascertained that prohibitory orders were harsh and strict. Thus, it poses the question and confusion as to the approach of State Board implementation. Whether pollution should be tolerated at all in the guise of development? Whether the Acts provisions

22 23 24

Muniswami Gowda (K) & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors 286-287 AIR 1998 Kant 28.
Damodaran Nair (V.S.) Ors v. State of Kerela & Ors AIR 1996 Ker 8. Chaitanya Pulvarising Industry & Anr v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr AIR 1987 Karn 82.

allow such tolerance?

The same powers and authority have been conferred on the State Board and Central Board formed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. But even they have not been working up to the mark as highlighted in the following case. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,25 the petitioner had filed the writ petition for prevention and control of nuisance caused by the pollution of river Ganga. The Supreme Court traced the relief of curbing the pollution under the Water Act and held that statutory provisions impose the duty on the municipal authorities and the Board. Thus, the Court in turn, directed the respective bodies to take action which they should have taken themselves.

3.2. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, find its main objective under 3(3) wherein the main purpose of this Act is to create authorities with adequate powers to control pollution and protect the environment.26 The section 3(3) stipulates power of Central Government to constitute such authorities by notifying in official gazette as necessary to implement this Act and conferring them adequate powers. It is the function of Board and its officers to take action under the Act when they notice huge quantity of hazardous waste dumped and they are not required to bring it in to notice of High Court for seeking a direction on the units to stop unauthorized disposal of waste. Thus, we can say that legislature had done its job to provide enough autonomy to the Boards and ensure immediate redressal to pollution activities. However, the Supreme Court of India has observed that it is a pity that no authority has been constituted by the Central Government. Rather the work which is required to be done by these authorities is being performed by Courts of law in India. This can be explained through several case laws. In the case of Sector 14 Residents Welfare Association v. State of Delhi,27 the petition was filed with respect to upgradation of sewerage management system in trans-Yamuna area of Delhi and some areas of Noida. The Court established a Committee in this regard which put forth various suggestion for such upgradation. The Court transferred this report to the Central Control Board formed by the Central Government and directed that this body was responsible for carrying out the required changes. The Court further stated that if the responsible authority

25 26

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1988 SC 1115. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors AIR 1996 SC 2715. 27 Sector 14 Residents Welfare Association v. State of Delhi (1999) 1 SCC 161.

fails to perform the action then it would be liable under the law. This case clearly highlights the efficiency of such Boards formed under the Act. The Courts have to give direction to these Boards of exercise their statutory powers. The irony is that statutory power places the Board above Courts and yet in reality Courts have to bear the burden of implementation. Further in the case of Vellore Citizens for Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors,28 the complaint was filed against discharge of untreated effluent by tanneries and other industries. Such tanneries have been discharging effluents into agricultural fields, road sides, water ways and open lands. Also, the effluents were discharged in the river Palar which was main source of water supply to residents of the area. The Supreme Court observed that it was duty of Central Governments to take necessary steps under the Water Act and Environment Protection Act, and thus directed it to do the same. The Court further expressed pit that despite of surplus power to curb pollution under the legislations, government is portraying its inefficiency time and again.

The question of development v. environment has been discussed several times in the history of environmental jurisprudence. The only sane conclusion that has emerged is concept of sustainable development drawing a balance between the two. The same principles form underlying principle of Indian environmental legislations too. But whether it has been followed? In the case of Goa Foundation & Anr v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ors,29 the Central Government decided to provide a broad gauge railway line from Bombay to Mangalore. However, since laying railway line was not industry or construction work, hence no clearance was taken before starting the work. The petitioner challenged the same and contended that clearance should be taken along with Environment Impact Assessment and Environment Management Plan. Further the project was destructive towards environment and causing disbalance to ecosystem. However, eve the Court took the stand of the government by deciding that activities of clearance involves building, workshop or thermal power plants and not to rail line or public road. Thus, this case posed a serious question with respect to our priority for environment protection. The same approach was adopted in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India,30 where it was considered that construction of dam is neither nuclear establishment nor polluting industry and thus, is not dangerous for environment. However, this approach for implementation of environment protection rules is

28 29

Vellore Citizens for Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors AIR 1996 SC 2715. Goa Foundation & Anr v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ors AIR 1992 Bom 471. 30 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 32.

wrong since any developmental activity can cause damage to environment even if it is for public welfare and benefit. On the same line, the decision was given in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,31 the Airport Authority of India at Indira Gandhi International Airport filed an application for permission to install Hot Mix Plants in the vicinity of IGIA for a period of one year for resurfacing of the runways for safe landing and takeoff domestic and international aircrafts and for smooth handling of aircraft. The Court held that resurfacing of the runways is more important and of national importance. Further, environmental problem has to balance with the necessity of running an International Airport in Capital of India.

Therefore, there is dire need for steps to be taken which would actually ensure efficient performance of these Boards in order to bore real fruits of this legislature.

4. C ONCLUDING REMARKS AND SUGGESTIONS

The statement of objects and reasons of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 duly recognizes the environmental problems in India. Similarly, the object clause of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 also recognizes the problem of pollution. But these legislations have miserably failed to keep the wholesomeness of environment intact. These laws are not drafted for effective implementation. These legislations seem like shining but blunt swords. The provisions are very weak and complex.

Instead of in situ application of science and technology into the existing way of life of dispersed population into the villages, the application of science and technology has been to create concentrated projects of industry, livelihood and cities for the supply of labor by assuring the shifting of villages to such cities. 32 This shifting has been done without any law, order and information or consent of such villagers to the model of economic development. This silently compels these millions to an absolutely degraded environment. The planners and economists of Indian state, who have unleashed these models on unsuspecting villagers, do not plan any facility for the shifting millions to the city even though these planners and economists know that this would happen. The consequences of this is that those persons become illegal persons as they and their families occupy any land and build it into slums. Therefore, they and their families are deliberately deprived of their status by Indian state. Today, 50% of every city
31 32

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1997 (1) Scale (SP) 31. A.K TIWARI, ENVIRONEMNETAL LAWS IN INDIA (2006).

is in slums.33

The normal way of life of millions of citizens to which science and technology has not been applied at the places they live is termed backward without any study or research of normal way of life. Respect and status both socially and legally is withdrawn and then conferred on the way of life in the cities of the present. Therefore, the fundamental duty of citizens to construct a scientific temple34 is disabled by the state. Thus, space is created in the minds of millions of citizens leading a normal of life in consonance with local physical and material conditions to recognize themselves as deprived, disadvantaged and lacking the consumption status of respect human beings in comparison to the way of life and consumption of products in the cities. In this mental environment created by the unconstitutional action of the state, the demonstration effect finds full play. The consequences- rising concentration of aspiration, demand and consumption of the same product and same way of life for all to the profitable delight of manufacturers, traders and those selling those products.35 The ever rising symbol of respect and dignity for consumption based on runaway chemicals, plastic and more and more processing which is weather neutral, place neutral and human neutral. 36 And these products are kept out of reach of millions by the economic model. In the city slums, there is no question of water and therefore of toilets, bathing hygiene and health. Public health is the central issue of all environmental laws as well as a concern of the constitution of India.

Therefore, the legal provisions as well as the whole mechanism of environment protection need a change. The provisions which give excessive administrative control to the government need to be repealed to ensure the presence of rule of law in real sense. Moreover, the legislations are ineffective without adequate funds and technical provisions. The state should carve a separate budget for the implementation of these legislations. Further, the judiciary, with much more support of the public (as in filing PILs etc.), should ensure that there is strict implementation of these laws and that too in real sense.37 The system of checks and balances should be respected by all three organs of the state.

Apart from all these measures, it is for the real stakeholders, i.e. the citizens of the nation, to see to it that all mechanisms for the protection of the environment are in place and working
33 34

Rukmini S, 65 million people live in slums in India, says census data, THE HINDU, October 1, 2013. Art. 51A(h) THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950. 35 MOHAMMED NASIM, ENIRONEMNTAL LAWS IN INDIA (2004). 36 DR. VIKAS VASHISHTH, LAWS & PRACTICE OF ENVIRONEMNTAL LAWS IN INDIA (2ND ED. 2002). 37 C.M. ABRAHAM , ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA (1999).

efficiently. Knowledge is virtue and knowledge comes from keeping the eyes and ears open.

By:- Mrinal Mohan And Ruby Panchal, 3rd Year, B.A LL.B(Hons.), RGNUL Patiala