ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

ABSTRACT

Public interest litigation and judicial activism on environmental issues extends beyond India's
Supreme Court. It includes the High Courts of individual states. India's judicial activism on
environmental issues has, some suggest, delivered positive effects to the Indian experience. The
Supreme Court has, through intense judicial activism, the proponents claim, become a symbol of
hope for the people of India. As a result of judicial activism, India's Supreme Court has delivered
a new normative regime of rights and insisted that the Indian state cannot act arbitrarily but must
act reasonably and in public interest on pain of its action being invalidated by judicial
intervention. India's judicial activism on environmental issues has, others suggest, had adverse
consequences. Public interest cases are repeatedly filed to block infrastructure projects aimed at
solving environmental issues in India, such as but not limiting to water works, expressways, land
acquisition for projects, and electricity power generation projects. The litigation routinely delays
such projects, often for years, while rampant pollution continues in India, and tens of thousands
die from the unintended effects of pollution. Even after a stay related to an infrastructure project
is vacated, or a court order gives a green light to certain project, new issues become grounds for
court notices and new public interest litigation. Judicial activism in India has, in several key
cases, found state-directed economic development ineffective and a failure, then interpreted laws
and issued directives that encourage greater competition and free market to reduce environmental
pollution. In other cases, the interpretations and directives have preserved industry protection,
labor practices and highly polluting state-owned companies detrimental to environmental quality
of India.

Introduction

One of the most important developments that took place in the recent years is the process of
social action and social reform through legal action known as Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

1|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Until the emergence of PIL, justice was a remote reality for our illiterate, underprivileged and
exploited masses. This has been Largely due to three major difficulties: (i) lack of awareness
amongst people; (ii) lack of assertiveness due to their low socio-economic status; and (iii) lack of
an effective machinery to give them legal aid. It is only when the poor become aware that the
wrong done to them is a legal wrong and that there is a legal remedy available to them, they will
seek a legal redressal. Even if they are aware of their legal rights, the poor do not have the means
nor the will to go for expensive litigation. And wherever a large number of people are victims of
a common injustice or common exploitation, it is not possible for each one of them to file
separate petitions and seek remedies individually. These are some of the major obstacles the poor
face in the pursuit of justice. The reinterpretation of the concept of ‘locus standi’ by the Supreme
Court has removed one of the major hurdles faced by the poor and has paved the way for easy
access to courts of justice. According to the traditional interpretation only a person who had
suffered a legal wrong himself could take recourse to the court of law for relief. The new
position is that if a legal wrong is done to a person or a class of persons who, by reasons of
poverty or any other disability, cannot approach a court of law for justice, it is open to any
public-spirited individual or a social action group to file a petition on his or their behalf. This
new approach to bring justice to the poor and the oppressed, it is hoped, will give meaning to the
constitutional objectives of socioeconomic justice for all.

MEANING OF PIL

Public Interest Litigation means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of
public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. Therefore, PIL is a
proceeding in which an individual or group seeks relief in the interest of general public and not
for its own purposes. PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and is intended to bring
justice within the reach of poor masses. It is a devise to provide justice to those who individually
are not in a position to have access to the courts. It was initiated for the benefit of a class of
people, who were deprived of their constitutional and legal rights because they were unable to
have access to the courts on account of their socio-economic disabilities. Today millions of poor
particularly those of the oppressed sections of society are looking at the courts for getting justice

2|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

and improving their life conditions. Responding to the demands of the changing times and needs
of the people, the courts are making efforts to become the courts of the poor, courts for the poor
and the struggling
masses in this country. Fortunately, this change is gradually taking place and PIL is playing a
major part in bringing this change.

ORIGIN OF PIL

The term “PIL” originated in the United States in the mid 1960s. In the nineteenth century,
various movements in that country have contributed to public interest law, which are a part of the
legal aid movement. The first legal aid office was established in New York in 1876. In the 1960s
the PIL movement began to receive financial support from the office of economic opportunity.
This encouraged lawyers and public spirited persons to take up cases of the under-privileged and
fight against various issues like--dangers to environment, harms to public health, exploitation of
vulnerable masses, exploitation of consumers and injustice to the weaker sections. In England
PIL made a mark during the years of Lord Denning in the 1970s. He as a petitioner brought
several public issues to the court. PIL had begun in India towards the end of 1970s and came into
full bloom in the 1980s. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati, have delivered
some landmark judgments which opened up new vistas of PIL. Some of the Supreme Court
Judges felt the need for initiating PIL because they observed that the protection of law had so far
been available only to the rich and the politically powerful. The civil and political rights of the
poor people existed only on paper and not in reality. The poor and the illiterate were not able to
understand their legal problems and did not have legal access to justice through the traditional
type of litigation because of its high cost, complicated and slow procedures. Hence they believed
that the time has come for the courts of the rich to become the courts also of the poor and the
oppressed masses. They wanted to make the judicial system an effective instrument of social
justice. Justice Bhagwati has encouraged PIL as chairperson of the committee for implementing
Legal Aid Schemes. The Apex Court realized its constitutional power of intervention which
could be used to mitigate the misery arising from repressive practices of government,
lawlessness and administrative negligence and indifference. Judges, committed to the cause of

3|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

social justice, recognized that they could play a proactive role to tilt the balance of governance in
favour of the havenots.

ESSENTIALS OF PIL

The main presumption behind PIL was that radical changes in society would come about through
the courts of justice if fundamental rights of weak and poor citizens are enforced effectively. The
new technique fashioned by the architects of PIL would bring about far reaching changes in the
judicial system of the country. Public enterprises are owned by the people and those who run
them are accountable to the people. The accountability of the public sector to the Parliament is
ineffective. In such cases the court would be under duty to interfere. (Fertiliser Corporation V/s
Union of India, AIR 1981, SC 434.)
There are three new elements incorporated in PIL: (a) Liberalisation of law relating to “locus
standi”. (b) Adoption of simple procedure in entertaining PIL petitions. (c) Expansion of the
meaning and scope of Articles 14, 21 and 32 of the Constitution.
Justice Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta’s case pointed out the essentials of PIL, as under
a) There must be a legal wrong caused to a person or to a determinate class of person, on whom
burden is imposed in violation of law or without legal authority.
b) The wrong must arise from violation of any constitutional or legal right.
c) The wronged person (or determinate group of persons) must be unable to approach court for
relief by reason of – (i) poverty, (ii) helplessness; or (iii) social or economic disability or socially
or economically disadvantaged person.
d) If the above conditions are satisfactory, then any member of the public can seek judicial relief
for the above wrong.
e) But the court should be anxious to ensure that the person initiated the proceeding to acting
bonafide to get redress for a public grievance and not to pursue personal gains or from malicious
motives.
f) If the case is otherwise appropriate for PIL then the court can act even on letter addressed to it.
(SP Gupta Vs Union of India, AIR 1982SC 149)

4|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

PERSONS DISQUALIFIED TO FILE PIL

The following persons are not entitled to file a PIL case.

(a) a person without sufficient public interest;
(b) a person acting for self gain or personal profit;
(c) a person with political involvement; and
(d) a person with malafide intentions.
A third party who is a total stranger to the prosecution which ended in the conviction of the
accused has no ‘locus standi’ to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to the convicts
through a PIL. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in Simaranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India,
1992 (4) SC 65. In this case the two assassins of General Vaidya were found guilty of murdering
him. They were awarded death penalty which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The
President of Akali Dal filed a PIL under Article 32 challenging the conviction and the sentence
on the ground of violation of Article 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the
petitioner has no ‘locus standi’ to file the petition as he was a total stranger to the prosecution
and more than that he was not even authorised by the convicts. The fear expressed by certain
people regarding the liberal view of the Supreme Court on ‘locus standi’ is that it would lead the
court being flooded with writ litigation and therefore they should not be encouraged. To the
above criticism the court declared, “No State, had the right to tell its citizens that because a large
number of cases of the rich are pending in our courts, we will not help the poor to come to the
courts, for seeking justice until the staggering load of cases of people who can afford rich
lawyers is disposed off.” (AIR 1983 SC 339).

PROCEDURE TO FILE A PIL IN THE COURT :-

Any public spirited citizen can move/approach the court for the public cause (in the interests of
the public or public welfare) by filing a petition:
1. In Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution;
2. In High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution; and
3. In the Court of Magistrate under Sec.133, Cr. P.C.

Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949-

5|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and (2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution

Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949-

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in
any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ),
without
(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for
such interim order; and

6|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for
the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour
such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the
application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date
on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High
Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall,
on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power
conferred on the Supreme court by clause (2) of Article 32

Section 133 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Conditional order for removal of nuisance

(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive

Magistrate specially empowered in this of behalf by the State Government, on receiving the
report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks
fit, considers-
(a) That any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from
any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or
(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is
injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade
or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be
removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or
(c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion
configuration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or
(d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and
thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighborhood or passing
by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or
the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or

7|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

(e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in
such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or
(f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of, such
Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or
nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or
owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or
excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order-
(i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or
(ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such
trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof
in such manner as may be directed; or
(iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such
substance; or
(iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such
trees; or
(v) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or
(vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said
order; or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate
subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the Order, and show cause, in the manner
hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute.
(2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil
Court. Explanation- A" public place" includes also property belonging to the State, camping
grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes.
The Indian judiciary adopted the technique of public interest litigation for the cause of
environmental protection in many cases. The Supreme Court & 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
organization can maintain petition on behalf of poor & ignorant individuals In the area of
environmental protection, PIL has proved to be an effective tool. In Rural Litigation and

8|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. (1) 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 (2), the Supreme Court cautioned
the industries discharging inherently dangerous Oleum and H acid. The court held that such type
of pollution infringes right to wholesome environment and ultimately right to life.

EMERGENCE OF PIL IN INDIA

The first reported case of PIL in 1979 focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under
trial prisoners. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the PIL was filed by an Advocate on
the basis of the news item published in the Indian Express, highlighting the plight of thousands
of under trial prisoners languishing in various jails in Bihar. These proceeding led to the release
of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners. Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic
fundamental right which was denied to these prisoners. The same set pattern was adopted in
subsequent cases.

SOME OTHER SIGNIFICANT CASES

Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India

Parmanand Katara, a human rights activist, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on the basis
of a newspaper report concerning the death of a scooterist who was knocked down by a speeding
car. Doctors refused to attend to him and directed that he be taken to another hospital around 20
km away, one that was authorized to handle medico-legal cases. Based on the petition, the
Supreme Court held that:-

 Preservation of human life is of paramount importance.

 Every doctor, whether at a government hospital or otherwise, has the professional
obligation to extend his or her services with the expertise for protecting life.

9|Page
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

 There should be no doubt that the effort to save the person should be given top priority
not only of the legal professional but also of the police and other citizens who happen to
be connected to the matter.

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353-

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353- (Taj Trapezium Case)-SC ordered

unconditional closing down of all brick-kilns located within 20 km radius of Taj and in
the Taj Trapezium Area. This case also expanded concept of environment as including
national heritage and also expanded scope under Article 32 since it said even foreigners
have a right to enjoy our national heritage and thus, their rights must be protected.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (1988)

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (1988) 1 SCC 471– (Ganga Water Pollution
Case)- Despite of sufficient provisions under the water act, the Kanpur Mahapalika did
not take necessary steps to prevent pollution. SC issued directions to it for the same. Held
rights of people residing near Ganga must be protected against pollution.

M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India

M.c.Mehta and other - petitioner

V/s
Union of India and other - Respondent

Reference: Air 1987 SC 1086

Subject: This case is based on Article 32 and 21 of the constitution of India.

Fact of the case :-

10 | P a g e
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

1) Delhi cloth Mills is a public limited company, of which the registered office is located in
Delhi.

2) This company also runs Shriram Shady Avam urvarak udyog. Three units of this venture
which manufacture caustic soda ,chlorine, hydrochloric acid ,and stable bleaching powder,
super phosphate, vanaspati soap, sulphuric acid and anhydrous sodium sulphate ,highest
hydrochlorite nd antics arth.

3) All three units are located in the area of 76 acre and there developed a densely populated
colony in almost three acre where more than 2 lakh people reside.
4) Shriram khadya avam urvarak udyog was established in 1949 in which 263 employees were
working which include executives, supervisors and clerks.
5) On 4-12-1985 one of the shriram units leaked out a oleum gas because of which staff and the
public both were affected and according to the petitioner, and advocate died tragically.
6) On December 6,1985, another leakage of oleum gas occurred through a water tap, this leakage
was small but there spread an uneasiness among the people of the area.

Trial court -

After these leakage, the District Magistrate of Delhi passed an order under section 133(1) of
crPC on December 6,1985 and directed shriram khadya Adam urvarak udyog to stop the
manufacturing of dangerous gases and chemical within two day and remove all the stock within
one week.
This is also directed that the company will appear in the office of the magistrate of
Delhi on 17/12/1985 and clarify as to why this order should not be enforced in future.

Supreme Court -

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the supreme court under Articles 32 and 21 of the
constitution of India to this effect that there occurred leakage of oleum gas from one of the unit

11 | P a g e
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

of shriram khadya avam urvarak udyog on December 4 and 6 ,1985 as result of which many
people were affected and a person ,who was practising lawyer in tees hazard court, died
.therefore ,shriram industries should be closed and established at a distant place .it was
contended by the respondent that if the industry is closed down, the employees working therein
will have to face unemployment.

Judgment -

After hearing both the parties the Supreme Court gave the following judgment on the petition:

Directed to the Delhi legal Aid and advice council to take the matter of the person affected by the
oleum gas leakage in its hand and recover and file a suit in competent court for the recovery of
compensation from shriram khadya avam uravrak udyog. This suit be instituted with two month

The supreme court directed Delhi administration to provide necessary amount of money to the
Delhi legal aid and advice council so that the proceeding be conducted in a smooth way.

- The high court will nominate one or more judges for the disposal of the dispute as soon as
possible.
- The matter of transferring the industry to some other place will be listed on 3/2/1987 for
hearing.
- The writ petition for the compensation be decided.

Law laid down -

1. A petition was filed under Article 32 of the constitution of India for the enforcement of the
fundamental rights given under Article 32.
2. If any industry is manufacturing any hazardous good which endanger the safety, the owner of
the industry will be to provide compensation and the venture will be responsible for the
damages.
3. The principle of Absolute Liability was applied.

12 | P a g e
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

LANDMARK CASES IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

1. Taj Pollution Matter: M.C.Mehta Vs Union Of India (UOI) & Ors. W.P. (C)
No.13381/1984
2. Ganga Pollution Matter: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3727/1985 (M.C.Mehta Vs UOI &
Ors.)
3. Vehicular Pollution in Delhi: Writ Petition (Civil) No.13029/1985 (M.C.Mehta Vs
UOI & Ors.)
4. Pollution by Industries in Delhi: M.C.Mehta Vs Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition
(Civil) No.4677/1985,
5. Pollution in river Yamuna: Writ Petition (Civil) No.725/1994, News Item ‘HT’, dated
18.7.1994, A.Q.F.M. Yamuna Vs Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
6. Pollution in Noida, Ghaziabad area: Writ Petition (Civil) No.914/1996, Sector 14
Residents’ Welfare Association & Ors. Vs State of Delhi & Ors.
7. Noise pollution by firecrackers: Writ Petition (Civil) No.72/1998 (Noise Pollution–
Implementation of the laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume
producing sound systems) Vs UOI & Ors.
8. Import of Hazardous waste: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995 (Research Foundation
for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy Vs UOI & Ors.)
9. POLLUTION IN PORBANDAR, GUJARAT: Dr. Kiran Bedi Vs Union of India &
Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26/98
10. Management of municipal solid waste: Writ Petition (Civil) No.286/1994, Dr. B.L.
Wadehra Vs Union of India & Ors.
11. Management of solid waste in class-1 cities – Writ Petition (Civil) No.888/1996
(Almitra H.Patel Vs Union of India & Ors.)

13 | P a g e
 ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

12. Pollution in Medak District, Andra Pradesh: Writ Petition (Civil) No.1056/1990
(Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action & Others Vs. UOI & Others)
13.Pollution by Chemical industries in Gajraula Area: Writ Petition (Civil) No.418/1998
(Imtiaz Ahmad Vs UOI & Ors.) – Pollution by Chemical Industries in Gajraula area
14. Pollution of Gomti River: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 327/1990 (Vineet Kumar
Mathur Vs UOI & Ors.)

14 | P a g e