***VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM VERSUS UOI1

 This is a leading case in which the Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship between
environment and development.
 The petitioner- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a Public Interest Litigation U/A 32 of
Indian Constitution against the large-scale pollution caused to River Palar due to the discharge of
untreated effluents by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The water of
River Palar is the main source of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding people.
 Further, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore found that nearly
35,000 hectares of agricultural land has become either totally or partially unfit for cultivation.
 The question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the tanneries
should be allowed to continue to operate at the cost of lives of lakhs of people.
 The Supreme Court examining the report delivered its judgment making all efforts to maintain a
harmony between environment and development.
 The Court admitted that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign exchange earner and also
provides employment to several thousands of people. But at the same time, it destroys the
environment and poses a health hazard to everyone.
 The court delivering its judgment in favor of petitioners directed all the Tanneries to deposit a
sum of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the office of Collector as fine
 The Court further directed the State of Tamil Nadu to award Mr. M. C. Mehta with a sum of Rs.
50,000 as appreciation towards his efforts for protection of Environment.
 The Court in this case also emphasized on the constitution of Green Benches in India dealing
specifically with matters relating to environment protection and also for speedy and expeditious
disposal of environmental cases.

TOPICS COVERED UNDRER THIS CASE:

 Public Interest Litigation

 Art. 32
 Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle: the Supreme
Court applied al the above three principles. The Court specifically observed that the Polluter
Pays Principle extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also to the cost of
restoring the environmental degradation. Further, this remediation of the damaged environment
is the part and parcel of the process of Sustainable Development and as such the polluter is
liable. Keeping in mind the Precautionary Approach, the Supreme Court in this case directed the
Tanneries to get the proper waste treatment Facility installed in their respective industries as a
precaution towards discharging less hazardous waste into River Palar.

1
.AIR 1996 SC 2715: (1996) 5 SCC 647
 Sec 3(3) of EPA, 1986: the Supreme Court issued directions to the Central Government to act
under Sec 3(3) of this Act and to constitute an authority to deal with these polluting industries in
State of Tamil Nadu.
 Penalty Provisions of Water Act, 1974

***M. C. MEHTA VERSUS UOI2 (GANGA RIVER POLLUTION

CASE)
 On a PIL filed by the Mr. M. C. Mehta U/A 32 of Indian Constitution, it was observed by the
Supreme Court that water of River Ganga was highly toxic near Kanpur city- as the Tanneries in
the area were discharging their untreated effluents into the River. Also, nine nallahs were
discharging sewage effluents and sludge into the river. Similarly, dead bodies and half-burnt
bodies were also been thrown into the river. Also, the water supply and sanitary conditions in the
entire city was inadequate and not up to the marks of a normal city.
 The petitioner demanded the issuance of a writ/order/direction to restrain the State of U.P from
letting out trade effluents into River Ganga.
 It was contended by the respondents that the Tanneries from the Kanpur city- due to their lack of
physical facilities and technical know-how and funds- it was not possible for them to install the
proper treatment facilities.
 The Court rejecting their contentions said that “the financial capacity of a tannery should be
considered irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary trea6tment plants… Just like an
industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, the
tannerieswhich cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue.”
 Further, the court observed that the contents of iron and manganese were higher from the ISI
limits of river water which was found to be very harmful for consumption.
 The court ordered the Tanneries which did not appeared before the court should stop functioning
and before they restart , they must install pre-treatment machineries for trade effluents.
 Therefore, the court held the Kanpur Mahanagarpalika liable and also passed several direction
for the PCA (Prevention, Control and Abatement) of pollution of River Ganga, some of which
were:
o Increase of size of sewers in labor colonies;
o Construction of several numbers of latrines and urinals;
o Preventing the throwing the dead bodies and half-burnt bodies or ashes after Funeral
ceremonies into the river;
o Installing treatment plants in tanneries and other factories;
o Observe the ‘Keep the village clean week’

2
(1997) 2 SCC 353
 o Addition of slides relating to importance and purity of water in the theatre at the time of
intervals.

TOPICS COVERED IN THIS CASE:

 PIL u/A 32
 Art 48-A and Art 51-A (g): The Court referred to these Articles and reminded both the State and
citizens to fulfill their Constitutional duty to protect their surroundings.
 Provisions of Water Act, 1974: The Court further noticed lack of performance of duties by the
CPCB and SPCB with the work of laying down standards for treatment of sewage and trade
effluents.
 Sec 3 & 5 of EPA, 1986: The Court also observed that nothing has been do0ne in these matters
by the Central Government especially when the matter has been published again and again in
newspaper.

ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VERSUS

M. V. NAYADU3
 The respondents applied for the consent for establishment of the industry to the Commissioner of
industries. The issuance of license was subjected to various conditions which include3d a
condition to obtain a certificate from the SPCB for pollution control and equipment proposed to
be installed met their requirements.
 The application was rejected by A. P. PCB as the industry was a polluting unit and fell under
“Red Category” and the proposed site was within the radius of 102kms of the two lakes-
Himayat Sgar Lake and Osman Sagar Lake- which were the primary source of drinking water for
the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
 The Corporation again, after a year applied for the permission and clearance but the APPCB
rejected the application again on the same grounds.
 Aggrieved the respondents moved before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority
issued directions to APPCB to grant its consent fir establishment of industry.
 But before this order was passed by the Tribunal, the Respondents had already filed a PIL before
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating the order of APPCB to be arbitrary. The High Court
allowing the PIL also directed the APPCB to grant its consent for the same.
 Aggrieved, the APPCB went in appeal u/A 136 to Supreme Court against the orders of High
Court. The Supreme Court made various observations and allowed the appeal agreeing to the
decisions of the APPCB for not granting the consent.
 The court observed that “In the environmental field, where the uncertainty of scientific opinions
have created serious problems for the courts- Uncertainty becomes a problem when scientific
3
. AIR 1999SC 812: 2001 (2) SCC 62
 knowledge is institutionalized in policy-making by agencies and courts.” The judges realized that
Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle are now part of environmental jurisprudence
of the country.
 The court also referred to cases of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum and Shri Ram Food and
Fertilizers Gas Leakage case.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 Article 226 and 136 of Indian Constitution

 Sec 28 of Water Act, 1974
 Art 48-A and 51 A (g)
 Polluter Pays Principle
 Precautionary Principle as under Principle 15 of Rio Declaration: the principle of precaution
involves anticipation of environmental harms and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the
least environmentally harmful activity. The Precautionary Principle suggest that where there is
an identifiable risk of serious harm, it may be appropriate to shift the burden of proof on the
person proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment.
 Inter-generational Equity as recognized under Stockholm Declaration

S JAGANNATH VERSUS UOI4

 The petitioner through the present PIL has sought the enforcement of CRZ Notification, 1991 for
prohibiting the intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile
coastal areas and constitution of a National Coastal Management Authority for safeguarding the
marine life and coastal areas.
 Due to the commercial aquaculture farming there is a considerable degradation of the mangrove
ecosystems, pollution of potable waters, and reduction in fish catch. The groundwater has
become contaminated sue to seepage of impounded water from the aquaculture farms. Further.
The court observed that most of the coastal land recently converted into shrimp farms was
previously used for food crops and traditional fishing.
 Further, the expansion of the modern Shrimp ponds in the coastal area has meant that the local
fishermen could reach the beach only after trespassing these Shrimp farms or by taking a long
detour.
 The court observed that sea coasts and beached are the gift on nature to the mankind. The
aesthetic qualities and the recreational utility of the said area have to be maintained. Any activity
which has the effect of degrading the environment cannot be permitted.
 The effluents discharged by the commercial shrimp culture farms are covered by the definition of
environmental pollutant, environmental pollution and hazardous substance. The NEERI Report

4
. (1997) 2 SCC 87: AIR 1997 SC 811
 indicates that these effluents are in excess of the prescribed standards. Further, no action is being
taken by the authority Under the EPA, 1986 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management and
Handling Rules), 1989 or the Water Act, 1974 or the Fisheries Act, 1897or the WPA, 1972 etc.
 The court ordered the following:
o No part of the agricultural land and the salt farms could be converted into Aquaculture
farms;
o An authority shall be constituted under the Central Government under Sec 8(3) of the
EPA, 1986;
o The authority so constituted shall implement the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter
Pays Principle.
o No shrimp culture ponds can be constructed in the coastal areas;
o Aquaculture industries functioning at present within 1km radius of the Chilika Lake must
compensate the affected persons;
o Aquaculture functioning outside the CRZ should obtain prior permission and clearance
from the authority within the prescribed time limit failing which they must stop their
operations.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED:

 PIL u/A 32
 Art. 21
 Art 48A
 Art 51 A(g)
 Environment Protection Rules, 1986
 Provision of Forests Conservation Act, 1980
 Provisions of the EPA, 1986
 Provisions of CRZ Notification1991
 Provisions of the Water Act, 1974
 Provisions of the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989
 Polluter Pays Principle
 Precautionary Principle
 Sustainable Development
 Inter-generational Equity

GOA FOUNDATION VERSUS KONKAN RAILWAYS

CORPORATION5

5
. AIR 1992 BOM 471
 It was a longstanding demand of the people in the region for a cheap and fast transport to
improve the economic conditions and to make accessible the hinterlands in the State of
Maharashtra, State of Goa and State of Karnataka. The Central Government was considering
providing a railway line for a considerable length of time but the project was postponed from
time to time due to lack of requisite funds. Ultimately the Central Government took a decision to
provide the line and to achieve that purpose. The Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., a public
limited Company, was set up. 
 The petitioner claims to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
river and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The petitioners approached this
Court by filing the present petition under Art 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the
Corporation should be compelled to procure environment clearance for the alignment passing
through the State of Goa from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India,
and until such clearance is secured all the work in respect of providing railway line should be
withheld.
 The grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed alignment has been planned and undertaken
without an adequate Environment Impact Assessment (E.I.A.).
 The petitioners claimed that the proposed alignment is wholly destructive of the environment and
the eco-system and violates the citizens" rights under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners
also claim that even though the ecological damage will not be felt immediately, such damage
will be gradual and will lead to the deterioration of the land quality and will affect large number
of people.
 The court observed that: “The Courts are bound to take into consideration the comparative
hardship which the people in the region will suffer by stalling the project of great public utility.
No development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment but the
projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the
people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. The balance has to be struck
between the two interests and this exercise must be left to the persons who are familiar and
specialized in the field.”
 Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED:

 Provisions of EPA, 1986

 CRZ Notification 1991
 Environment Impact Assessment Rules
 Art. 226
 Art 21
 Environment and development
 NARULA DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS UOI6
 The' petitioners -- Industrial units have challenged the action of the State Government taken
under Sec. 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, giving directions to them to stop
production activities and take necessary steps to make the waste water being discharged by the
units to conform to the standards specified by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and not to
restart the production activities without the permission of State Government and Forest and
Environment Department. 
 On behalf of the State Government and other respondents, it was contended that these units were
not having an operative effluent treatment plant and that they had not abided by the terms of the
consent letters given by the State Board under Sec 25(2) of the Water Act.
 Sec 25 of the Water Act prescribes restrictions on new out-lets and new discharges. It inter alia
provides that no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish any
industry or process which is likely to discharge sewerage or trade effluent into the stream or well
or sewer or on land. The consent of the State Board can be obtained by an application made
under Sec 25(2) of the Water Act. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 25 the State Board may grant
its consent subject to conditions as it may impose. The State Board may impose conditions
including conditions as to the nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge
of the effluent from the premises from which the discharge is to be made. 
 The court also agreed with the Respondents contention and held that the State Board has all the
powers to impose conditions upon the said industry in the light of Sec 25 of the Water Act, 1974
in order to PCA of the Water pollution
 Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the petitioners were directed to comply with the
directions of the State Government.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED:

 Provisions of EPA, 1986

 Provisions of Water Act, 1974
 Art 48A
 Art 51 A(g)

***INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION VERSUS

UOI7
 In this case, 5 factories were producing Hyaluronic Acid [H-acid] in Bicchari village, Udaipur.
These units were discharging highly toxic untreated effluents i.e. iron and gypsum based sludge.

6
. AIR 1995 GUJ 185
7
. AIR 1996 SC 1446: (1996) 3 SCC 212
 The result was long-lasting damage to the underground soil, underground water and environment
in general. The water in around 60 wells spread over 350 hectares turned red and became unfit
for drinking and other household purposes. The entire land of 350 hectares became infertile.
 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting under the powers given to him under Sec 144 Cr.P.C
ordered to show cause as to why these factories should not be shut down.
 Accordingly, a writ petition was filed by the Environmentalist organization- Indian Council for
Enviro-legal Action before the Supreme Court to look into the above matter.
 The court dealt in detail the matters concerned above referred to the cases of Rylands versus
Fletcher, Oleum Gas Leakage case, Bhopal Gas Tragedy etc. and applied the Principle of
Absolute Liability.
 The Court ordered closure of factories and also ordered them to pay damages up to the tune of
Rs. 4 Crores for reversal of ecology of the area.
 The Court also suggested setting up of Green Benches in all the State High Courts.

TOPICS COVERED UNDER THIS CASE

 Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989

 Environment Protection Act, 1986
 Sec. 144 Criminal Procedure code
 Art. 48 A and Art. 51A (g)
 Provisions of Water Act, 1974
 Absolute liability
 Strict liability
 Polluter Pays Principle
 Precautionary Principle
 Green Benches.

BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA8
 This writ petition was brought forward by the petitioner- Bombay Environmental Action Group,
in order to challenge the permission granted by the Central and State Government for
construction of a 500MW Thermal Power Station at District Thane against environmental norms.
 The petitioners contended the project would ruin the ecology of that area, further leading to
adversely affecting the aquatic life nearby.

8
. AIR 1991 BOM 301
 The defendants contended that there was no possibility of any loss to the surrounding
environment as there was no vegetation in that land which could be felled; the land was almost
infertile and useless. In addition to this, there was no habitation anywhere near the site area.
 The court therefore, analyzed the provisions of EPA, 1986 and the CRZ Notification and found
out that the environmental clearance given by the MoEF was contrary to the Environmental
norms.
 But still the petition was not allowed as the greater good requires no electricity cut in India.
 The Court held that- “environmental issues are relevant and deserve consideration. But the needs
of the environment require to be balanced with the needs of the Community at large and the
needs of developing countries. If one finds that all the safeguards have been taken and followed
properly, there is no need for Judiciary to interfere.”

TOPICS COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 PIL under Article 32

 Balance between environment and development
 Provisions of EPA, 1986
 CRZ Notification

M. C. MEHTA VERSUS UOI [SHRI RAM FOOD AND

FERTILIZERS CASE / OLEUM GAS LEAKAGE CASE]9
 The rule of Absolute Liability which is a more stringent rule than Strict Liability was laid down
in this case. This case is more popular as the oleum gas leakage case.
 Shri Ram Food and fertilizers Industry is a subsidiary of the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. Located in a
thickly populated area of Delhi.
 On 4th December 1985, there was a leakage of oleum gas from the Sulphuric acid plant resulting
in the death of an advocate and several injuries to other persons. Again, on 6 th December 1985,
there was a minor leakage of Oleum gas from the same plant. Against a complaint under Sec 133
Cr.P.C., the District Magistrate directed the management of Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers
Industry to close the unit and to show cause the reason within seven days in writing.
 The petitioner Mr. M. C. Mehta files a PIL u/A 32 of Indian Constitution. The petitioner in his
petition requested the Court to direct the Government to take necessary steps to avoid such
leakages from the industries engaged in dangerous and hazardous manufacturing processes. He
also reminded the Court of the recent incident of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and prayed the Court
to direct the management to shift these industries somewhere far from the city.
 The issues before the Supreme Court in this case were:
o Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not?
9
. (1986) 2 SCC 176
 o If not, what measures are require to be taken to prevent the leakages, explosion, air and
water pollution?
o Whether there are any safety devices existing in the Plant or not?
 The Supreme Court after great debate and discussion, decided to permit Shri Ram Food and
Fertilizers Industry to restore its operations. The Court observed that although such industries are
dangerous, they are very essential for the economic and social progress of the country.
 The court directed the management to deposit in the court Rs. 20 lakhs as security for payment of
compensation to the victims. Further, all the recommendations of the expert committees are to be
complied by the Industry and safety equipment are to be installed at the first instance.
 The court further directed the industries to establish and develop a green belt of 1-5 kms in width
around such industries.
 The court appreciated the petitioner Mr. M.C. Mehta for filing a number of PIL and ordered the
Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the costs.
 The court directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED IN THIS CASE

 PIL u/A 32 of Indian Constitution

 Strict liability as laid down in Ryland versus Fletcher
 Evolution of the Principle of Absolute Liability: the court held that “an enterprise, which is
engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, which poses a potential threat to the
health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding area-
owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to
anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be
conducted with the highest standard of safety and if any harm is done on account of such
activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harms and it should be
no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm had
occurred without any negligence on its part.” The court further observed that this rule of
Absolute liability is subjected to no exceptions.

M. C. MEHTA VERSUS UCC10

 On December 1984, there was a leakage of poisonous gas – Methyl Isocynate (MIC) from the
Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located at Bhopal which is a subsidiary of UCC,
U.S.A.
 This disaster is described as the world’s worst industrial disaster ad it claimed lives of 2,260
people and caused serious injuries to about 6 lakh of people.

10
. (1991) 4 SCC 584
 The Government of India, on behalf of the victims filed a suit in U.S District Court, New York.
The U.S District Court dismissed all the suits and petitions an representations on the ground of
forum non-conveniens i.e. the suits can be more conveniently tried in India.
 Again the UOI filed this present suit through M.C. Mehta versus UCC in the District Court of
Bhopal claiming 3.3 billion U.S dollars i.e. Rs. 3900 crores as compensation. The District Court
ordered UCC to pay interim relief of 270 million U.S. Dollars i.e. Rs. 350 crore to the victims.
 Aggrieved the UCC filed a civil Revision petition before the High Court at Madhya Pradesh,
which reduced the amount from rs. 350 Crores to Rs. 250 Crores.
 Aggrieved both the parties preferred appeals before the Supreme Court on different issues.
Several municipal and international issues were involved in this case for considerations. Some
such issues were:
o Whether the Parent Company is liable for the torts of its Subsidiary Company abroad?
The UCC has maintained it is only morally but not legally liable for its actions.
o Whether the Home State i.e. USA can be held responsible for the hazardous activities of
UCC’s Subsidiary Company abroad?
o Whether the Host State i.e. India responsible for enforcing the safety standards for the
protection of life and environment and the extent of liability to the victims for the
rehabilitation in the event of accidents?
 When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court another incident took place in the Shri
Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry of New Delhi. In that case, the Supreme Court evolved the
Principle of Absolute Liability from the 1868 Principle of Absolute Liability.
 Keeping that decision in mind the Supreme Court directed the UCC to pay sum of 470 Million
U.S. Dollars i.e. Rs. 750 crore towards compensation to the victims for the full and final
settlement in satisfaction of all past, present and future claims and the same was accepted by
both the parties.
 The Court by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction quashed all proceedings civil, criminal etc
against the UCC.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 Art 136 and Art 142 of Indian Constitution

 Art 12 and Art 21 of Indian Constitution
 Strict Liability
 Absolute Liability

SACHIDANAD PANDEY VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL11

11
. (1987) 2 SCC 295
 There was in Alipore- a zoological garden which was in the outskirts of the Calcutta city but
overtime the city has grown so much so that now the Zoological garden is in the heart of the city.
 In May 1980, the Taj Group of Hotels wanted to construct a five-star hotel in that area.
Accordingly, it was proposed that a four-acre land could be carved out from the Zoological garden
for the construction of the hotel.
 Later on looking at the blueprint of the hotel, the Managing Committee of the Zoo raised various
objections which were withdrawn later after a compromise. This compromise was settled on the
terms of construction of not a 60-storey hotel but a garden hotel.
 Accordingly, 5 petitioners filed a PIL to restrain the Zoo authorities from giving this land to the
Hotel Group. The Single Bench High Court judge dismissed the petition and the same was
confirmed by the Division Bench of the same High Court.
 Hence, the Appeal was preferred u/A136 to the Supreme Court.
 It was argued from the petitioner’s side that the Principles of Natural Justice has not been
observed and those who were interested in the welfare of the zoo were not heard in the matter
before the decision was taken.
 This however, was rejected by the court referring to trhe fact that all required precautions have
been taken by the Taj Group.
 The Apex Court in unequivocal terms pronounced that “whenever the matter of ecology is
brought before the Court, the Court are not to shrug its shoulders saying that it is a matter for
policy making authority.”
 But the court at the same time also observed that the approach of the Taj Group of hotels has
been credibly fair as they have given all the assurances to preserve the Zoo and its inmates. They
also agreed to build a garden hotel keeping in view the ecology of the area and for the protection
of the migratory birds.
 The appeal was therefore, dismissed and the construction was allowed.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 Art 136 of Indian Constitution

 PIL
 Art 48-A
 Importance of Nature was emphasized
 Provisions of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

***TARUN BHARAT SANGH, ALWAR VERSUS UOI12

12
1998 SUPP (3) SCC 115
 The petitioners have brought this PIL for enforcement of certain notifications under the WPA,
1972; EPA, 1986; and various Forests Laws in areas declared as Reserved Forests in Alwar
District of Rajasthan.
 The area now more popular as the Sariska Tiger Park has been declared as the Game Reserve, a
Sanctuary, a National Park, a Reserved forests and a Protected Area.
 Thus it is very obvious that any mining activity in that area shall be contrary to and
impermissible as under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980
 The Government of Rajasthan has illegally and arbitrarily issued about 400 mining licenses and
thereby enabled them to carry on the mining operations- which according to the petitioners will
tend to degrade and diminish the ecology of the area.
 The Court after observing various laws and facts went on praising the importance and beauty of
the ecology and its resources and said that “every source from which man has increased his power
has been used to diminish the prospects of his successors.”
 The Court directed the Central Government to act under Sec 3 of the EPA, 1986 and appoint a
Committee to ensure the enforcement of the above laws and to prevent devastation of the
environment and wild life within the protected area. The committee shall access the damage alone
to the environment and wildlife and make appropriate recommendations to this Court as to
ascertain the remedial measures.
 The Court further declared that no mining activity can be carried out in the said area.

TOPICS COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 PIL u/A 32
 Art. 48-A
 Provisions of WPA, 1972
 Provisions of EPA, 1986
 Forest Laws of the country
 Sanctuaries
 National Park
 Protected Area
 Reserved Forests
 Committees in India
 Tiger Park= in situ conservation = protection of biological diversity under the CBD,1992 and
BDA, 2002

PRADEEP KRISHNEN VERSUS UOI13

13
. 1996 (8) SCC 599
 The petitioner filed a PIL U/A 32 challenging constitutional validity of an order issued by the
State of M.P. permitting collection of Tendu leaves from sanctuaries and National Parks by
villagers living around the boundaries – contending it to be contravening the provisions of WPA,
1972 and violative of Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties.
 He further contended that illegal felling of trees and excessive grazing has led to loss of
vegetation cover.
 He also argued that the State of M.P. had rightfully imposed a ban previously in the year 1992
but the said ban was lifted because of the growing business pressures.
 The petitioners contended that by lifting the said previous ban the State has ignored the Flora and
Fauna of the area and further that the presence of human beings is a huge threat to the
environment and wildlife of the area.
 The court highlighted the importance of Art. 48A and Art 51 A (g).
 Further, the court held that for the tribal to acquire any rights over the forest land in the
sanctuaries and national parks- proper procedures have to be followed under the WPA, 1972. Till
such procedure is complete, the State government cannot bar entry of the villagers or tribal into
the Forest- until such entry is likely to result in the destruction or damage to the environment of
the area.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED IN THIS CASE:

 WPA, 1972
 PIL u/A 32
 Art 48A and Art 51 A (g)
 Art. 14
 Sanctuaries
 National Parks
 Tribal Rights

IVORY TRADERS AND MAUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

VERSUS UOI14
 There are two sets of writ petitions in this case. The first was with regard to the challenge to the
constitutional validity of certain provisions of the WPA, 1972 as amended in 1991 and the second
was the challenge to the same thing except that the petitioners contended that they deal with ivory
derived from the mammoth, an extinct species of the wild animals, not covered by the WPA, 1972
 The provisions of WPA, 1972 as amended in 1991 put a ban on all dealings of ivory and which
was contended by the petitioners as unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary and violative of their
Freedom of Trade as provided under Art. 19 (1) (g).
14
. AIR 1997 DEL 267
 The petitioners further contended that even though theb1991 Amendment Act extinguishes their
title over the imported ivory which was lawfully acquired by them- they should be at least allowed
to sell their stocks of ivory and the products made therefrom and the Government should buy the
same.
 They also contended that the Parliament is not competent to legislate on the matter of remains of
ivory coming from an extinct mammoth and the WPA,1972 specifically does not deal with this
kind of ivory at all.
 On the other hand, the respondents argued that the WPA, 1972 has been enacted to provide
protection and conservation to the wild life and further that the trade in wild life or any part
thereto is antithetic to conservation. They further contended that these restrictions were reasonable
and necessary in Public Interest and were meant to give efforts to the DPSP’s. further, after the
Amendment Act coming into force from 1991 till July 1992, the petitioners have enough time to
liquidate their stocks but they did not do so.
 The Court observed that the Principal Act of 1972 and the Amendment Acts of 1982, 1986, 1991
case to the conclusion that the population of elephant has gone down and it has now become
endangered species.
 The Parliament judged the situation has rightfully prohibited trade in ivory articles by fulfilling
its constitutional obligation u/A 48A and international obligation under CITES, 1973.
 The court declared that trade and businesses at the costs of disrupting life forms cannot be
permitted even once.
 Further, the reiterated that rights under Art 19 (1) (g) are not absolute rights and restrictions can
be imposed on them in Public interest.
 The Court realized that 50 years ago, the urgency to preserve the elephant may not have been the
upper most priority of human beings as at that point of time it was not at the verge of extinction as
it is now and therefore, the Court held that the State was totally justified in imposing restrictions
on killing of elephants.
 The court declared that:
o No citizen has the Fundamental Right to trade in ivory and ivory articles
o The prohibition is in the public interest
o The ban is not violative of Art.14 and does not suffer from any un reasonableness,
unfairness and arbitrariness.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 WPA, 1972 as amended in 1982, 1986, 1991

 CITES
 Art 19 (1) (g)
 Art. 21
 Art 48 A
 Trade in Wild life
 Fundamental Rights and DPSP’s
 In situ and ex situ conservation
 Art 300-A

INDIAN HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM VERSUS UOI15

 The question on issue in this case was whether putting a prohibition on the trade of Indian ivory
is constitutional or not?
 The case runs on the same lines as that of the case of Ivory Traders and Manufacturers
Association versus UOI.
 The Supreme Court held that trade in ivory is totally prohibited under Chapter II-A and any
person who has obtained a certificate from the Chief Wild life Warden (CWW) may keep
possession of such product but cannot sell it further. Such restriction is a reasonable restriction
u/A 19 (1) (g).

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE

 WPA, 1972 as amended in 1982, 1986, 1991

 CITES
 Art 19 (1) (g)
 Art. 21
 Art 48 A
 Trade in Wild life
 Fundamental Rights and DPSP’s
 In situ and ex situ conservation
 Art 300-A

ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL DEFENCE FUND

VERSUS UOI16
 The petitioners are an association of lawyers and other persons challenging the validity of the
order of CWW granting 305 fishing permits to the tribal residing in the Pench National Park
situated in the heart of Pench National Park Tiger Reserve. The said area was also a reserve forest.
 U/S 19 of the WPA, 1972 the Collector of the area was required to publish a proclamation and
allow the opportunity to people to claim their forests rights.

15
. AIR 2003 SC 3240
16
. AIR 1997 SC 107
 Since 1977, no one came to claim their rights on account of illiteracy and unawareness. However
in the year 1994 three applications regarding claims had been received. The tribal people have
claimed that their fishing rights should be preserved as this is their only source of livelihood.
 The petitioner prayed that if 305 fishing licenses are granted, it will seriously affect the ecology
of the area and further, it humanly impossible to monitor 305 fishing licenses operating together.
 Further the petitioners are of the view that the population of Crocodiles, turtles and Migratory
Birds might face severe extinction.
 The Court noticed that some efforts have already been made by the State of Maharashtra of
limiting the damage by imposing conditions on these licenses.
 The court therefore, issued additional conditions on these licenses:
o Each permit holder shall hold photo ID along with his photograph
o These permits are neither transferable nor heritable.
o Each permit holder shall have the right to enter the National Park and reach the reservoir
using the highway only.
o A daily record of entry and exit of such permit holders has to be maintained in a register.
o The fishermen shall be prohibited from lighting fires in the forests for cooking purpose.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 Wild life Protection Act 1972

 EPA, 1986
 Art. 48 A
 Rights of tribal people

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW WWF-I VERSUS UOI17

 In this case, the court suo motu gave the directions to 17 States to comply with the provisions
under Sec 33-A and Sec 34 of WPA, 1972
 Sec 33-A deals with immunization aloof the livestock in the sanctuaries
 Sec 34 deal with the Registration of the persons in the forest area possessing arms within 2
months

FATEHSANG GIMBA VASAVA VERSUS STATE OF

GUJARAT18

17
. AIR 1999 SC 354
18
. AIR 1987 GUJ 9
 The petition has been brought forward by the poor adivasis in the State of Gujarat as they were
deprived of the forests rights conferred upon them by the State Government.
 The petitioners contended that they have certain rights in the reserved forests (residence and
collection of forest produce) for their hutment and livelihood.
 On the other hand, the forest officers thinking that these articles are covered under the term
‘minor forest produce’ under Sec 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927- refused them permission for
collection of these articles from the forest areas without a transit permit.
 The Court in this case observed that the sole purpose of grating certain special privileges to the
residents of forest villages is to give them a source of livelihood.
 The court further observed that the term ‘forest produce’ under Sec 2 (4) of the Indian Forest
Act, 1927 definitely include bamboo within its ambit but it does not include products made from
bamboo, because once the produce becomes a product brought about by human labor- it cases tho
come within the ambit of the Section.
 The Court directed the State officials to restore the rights of the aadivasis and allow them with
the bamboo to earn their livelihood.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 Sec 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

 Tribal Rights of the People

***RURAL LITIGATION ENTITLEMENT KENDRA (RLEK)

VERSUS UOI19
 This is the first environmental PIL in India.
 RLEK, a voluntary organization, wrote a letter to Supreme Court which was treated as a petition.
The letter disclosed the unauthorized and illegal mining activities carried in the entire stretch of
Doon Valley.
 There was reduction in the Green Belt from 70% to 10%.
 The reckless mining operations, careless disposal of mine debris and unregulated blasting
operations disturbed the natural water systems and the supply of water for drinking and irrigation
purposes went down.
 Further the quarrying operations destroyed the homes of many migratory birds and compelled
the residents of that area to shift from that place.
 The Supreme Court acting promptly prohibited the mining operations with a view to determine if
the mines were operated with the safety standards.
 The Supreme Court appointed the Bhargava Committee- to assess the total effects of the mines
in the ecology of the area. On the recommendations of the Bhargava Committee, the court ordered
that these operation in such an ecologically sensitive area has to be stopped.

19
. AIR 1988 SC 2187
 The court further observed that preservation of ecology is a task which not only the States but
also the Citizens must undertake u/A 51 A (g).
 The court directed the State to pay Rs. 10,000 to RLEK for their efforts and take steps towards
restoration of the ecology.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 Art 32- Epistolary Jurisdiction

 Forest Conservation Act, 1980
 PIL/ Locus Standi
 Environmental Committees
 EPA, 1986
 Indian Forest Act, 1927
 Art 48 A
 Art 51 A (g)
 Art 14- granting of arbitrary licenses

SUBHASH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR20

 The present writ petition alleges that the west Bokaro Collaries and the Tata Iron and Steel Co.
are polluting River Bokaro by discharging slurry from their washeries into the river.
 The petitioner further alleges that the State of Bihar and SPCB have failed to rake appropriate
steps under the Water Act, 1974 for PCA of water pollution.
 The respondents denied the petitioners allegations by saying that all effective steps have been
taken by them to prevent the pollution.
 The court agreeing with the respondents dismissed the petition for the following reasons:
o A person whose fundamental right has been violated can take recourse to Art 32 for
prevention of water pollution. But PIL cannot be invoked by a person or a group of
person to satisfy his/her personal grudge. It is the duty of the court to discourage such
actions.
o The court then went into the facts and observed that the petitioner has been purchasing
the slurry from the respondents for the last several years. With the passage of time, the
petitioner wanted more and more slurry but the respondents refused to sell additional
slurry.
 The petition was accordingly dismissed.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

20
. AIE 1991 SC 420
 Art 32 of Indian Constitution
 PIL
 Fundamental Rights
 Provisions of Water Act, 1974

T. DAMODAR RAO VERSUS SPECIAL OFFICER, MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION, HYDERABAD21
 The question involved in this case whether the Life Insurance Co. can legally use that land
owned by them in a recreational zone for residential purposes which was an act contrary to the
developmental plans of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.
 In this case, the writ petition was filed by some of the residents who lived around the Park
claiming that construction of residential colony in an area reserved for recreational purposes
amounts to violation of their Right to Life u/A 21.
 The court in this case held that any construction of residential house on the land allotted for
recreational park would upset the environmental balance of the area.
 The court directed the Government to remove any such construction on recreational zones.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED UNDER THIS CASE:

 Art 21
 EPA 1986.

21
. AIR 1987 AP 171