i \ Constitutional Interpretation of Environment: The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India added Article 48A and S1A(g) which comes under the Directive Principle of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties respectively.The Supreme Court of India in “Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109” stated that the Court is bound to bear in mind the above said articles whenever a case related to Environmental problem is brought to the Court. The Article 48A states: “The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.” The Article 51A(g) imposes a duty upon every citizen of india to protect and improve the natural environment and confers right to come before the Court for appropriate relief. Damodar Rao v. S.0. Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 AP 171 held that the environmental pollution and spoliation which is slowly poisoning and polluting the atmosphere should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Charan Lal Sahu Case The Supreme Court in this case Said, the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a wholesome environment. Public Liability and Public Nuisance: Gobind Singh v Shanti Swaroop: first case to determine the scope of Sec 133 of Cr. P.C “M.C. Mehta and Anr. Etc vs. Union of india and Ors. Ete 1986 SCR (1) 312” discusses the concept of Public Liability. This case is also known as Oleum Leakage Case. It is a landmark judgment in which the principle of Absolute Liability was laid down by the Supreme Court of India, The Court held that the permission for carrying out any hazardous industry very close to the human habitation could not be given and the industry was relocated. Live and Let Live was the concept held in Ram Baj Singh V Rajasthan+ The instant case evolved the “Deep Pocket Principle”. This judgment guided the Parliament to add a new chapter to the Factory Act, 1948. The Public Liability Act was passed and the policy for the Abatement of Pollution Control was also established. + When the Directive Principles of State Policy has clear statutory expressions then the Court will not allow Municipal Government to make fun of the Statutes by sitting idly, It was decided by the Supreme Court in the “Municipal Corporation, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622". The plea of lack of fund will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice. The office in charge and even the elected representatives will have to face a penalty if they violate the constitutional and other statutory directives. + Delhi gas teak case: M,C. Mehta v. Union of India: In instant case, the Supreme Court laid down two important principles of law: 1) The power of the Supreme Court to grant remedial relief for a proved infringement of a fundamental right (in case if Article21) includes the power to award compensation. 2) The judgment opened a new frontier in the Indian jurisprudence by introducing a new “no fault” liability standard (absolute liability) for industries engaged in hazardous activities which has brought about radical changes in the liability and compensation laws in India. * Church of God (Full Gospel) in India vs.KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association the Supreme Court observed that noise pollution amounts to violation of Art.21 of the Constitution. * LK. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court observed that a citizens duty to protect to protect the environment under Article. 51-A(g) of the Constitution bestows upon the citizens the right to clean environment. The judiciary may go to the extent of asking the government to constitute national and state regulatory boards or environmental courts. ‘+ Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, the Court said, Social security, just and humane conditions of work and leisure to workmen are as a part of his. meaningful right to life.Th. Majra Singh v indian Oil Corporation: it was held that the High Court can only ‘examine whether authorities have taken all precautions with a view to see that laws dealing with environment and pollution have been given due care and attention Sustainable Development ND Jayal v U.O.1, Construction of dam must be viewed from the objectives of sustainable development and into the law and the Constitution of India. The Bench of Justices PN Bhagwati and Ranganath Mishra in “Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 Sc 2187” introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development”.An NGO named RLEK filed a case against limestone quarrying in the valley in 1987. It was stated that the permanent assets of mankind are not to be exhausted in one generation. The natural resources should be used with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way. Kinkri Devi v State, Court stopped the ruthless blasting of rocks causing disturbance to the ecology and environment, M.C.Mehta v U.0.1 SC laid down the condition on which brick kiln in the National Capital Territory could be conveniently shifted to other places. Environmental Impact Assessment Justice Jeevan Reddy in the landmark judgment of “Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1502” held that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution by adopting the “Polluter Pays Principle”. The Court set a time limit for the coastal states to formulate coastal management plans and banned industrial or construction activity within 500 metres of the High Tide Line. Water Pollution ‘The writ petition filed by the activist advocate M.C. Mehta in the Supreme Court highlighted the pollution of the Ganga river by the hazardous industries located on its, banks, Justice ES Venkataramiah gave a historic judgement in “M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India AIR 1988 SCR (2) 538" ordering the closure of a number of polluting tanneries near Kanpur.In this judgment it was observed that just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot setup a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court of india upheld that “Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India Vijay Singh Puniya v State of Rajasthan: Shifting of cluster of dyeing and printing units from tesidentiai to non-residential zones as well as setting up Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETP). UP Pollution Control Board v Modi Distilleries, Court held that the company was responsible under vicarious liability for discharging the effluents in the river. Shriram Food and Fertilizers V U.O.1 , manufacturing chemicals is the function of the state however, any private corporation involved in this shail be considered as a state. Animal Welfare ‘The Hon'ble Supreme Court in prohibited Jallikattu and other animal races and fights. It was observed that the Bulls cannot be performing animals in the case of “Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraj and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547”. ‘The court alluded to the section 3 and section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and declared that animal fights incited by humans are illegal, even those carried out under the guise of tradition and culture. The Court listed various recommendations and overhauled the penalties and punishment in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to function effectively. Air Pollution The pride of India and one of the wonders of the world i.e., Taj Mahal, was facing threat due to high toxic emissions from Mathura Refineries, Iron Foundries, Glass and otherchemical industries. The acid rain was a serious threat to the Taj Mahal and 255 other historic monuments within the Taj Trapezium, The Apex Court in “M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) AIR 1987” delivered its historic judgment in 1996 giving various directions including banning the use of coal and cake and directing the industries to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). Environmental Awareness and Education Case ‘The Supreme Court in “M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India WP 860/1991” ordered the Cinema theatres all over the country to exhibit two slides free of cost on environment n In each show. Their licenses wil be cancelled if they fail to do so. The Televis network in the country will give 5 to 7 minutes to televise programmes on environment apart from giving a regular weekly programme on environment. Environment has become a compulsory subject up to 12th standard from academic session 1992 and University Grants Commission will also introduce this subject in higher classes in different Universities. Wildlife and Forest Prote n Case The livelihood of forest dwellers in the Nilgiri region of Tamil Nadu was affected by the destruction of forests. The Supreme Court in "TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of india and Ors.” passed a series of directions since 1995, till the final judgment in 2014. The Apex Court decided to set up a Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) to monitor the afforestation efforts, to oversee the compensation who suffered on account of deforestation, and to accelerate activities for preservation of natural forests. Awrit petition was filed by the Tarun Bharat Sangh in the Supreme Court to stop mining activities in the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary. The Court in the case of “The Tarun Bharat ‘Sangh vs. Union of India and Ors. {1991)" banned all the mining activities in the Sanctuary. ‘Smatha v State of A.P, court recognized alienable rights of the tribal people in the scheduled areas. Banwasi Seva Ashram v State of Uttar Pradesh, there should be a balance between the ecology and at the same time the oustees should be rehabilitated after examining their rights.4 Public Trust and Right to Life + The Bench of Justices Kuldip Singh and Sagir Ahmed held that the Government violated the Doctrine of Public Trust in “M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors. (1996)”. The Himachal Pradesh State Government had leased out a protected forest area on the bank of river Beds to motels, for commercial purposes. + The Right to Pollution Free Environment was declared to be a part of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of “Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1991)”. Right to Life is a Fundamental Right which includes the Right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.