Role of Judiciary in preserving environment

In Modern times the massive industrialization and growth of human has started taking a toll on
the environment. Many unnatural processes have begun due to such rapid human evolution such
as climate change phenomenon, melting of glaciers, extinction of animals among other things.
The dismal and failures of state agencies have led to Judicial intervention in matters of
environment. In fact in some cases we could witness judicial activism in order to preserve the
environment. The biggest champion in preserving the environment by means of judiciary has
been Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The courts liberalized the issue of locus standi in cases of
PIL thereby encouraging people to come forward wherever they saw any kind of environment
depletion.

The Supreme court of India is immensely engaged in changing the dynamics of environment
jurisprudence by the way of PILs. The Apex court has laid down various rules and guidelines to
protect the environment as well as created new organizations. The court makes sure to keeps a
check on the working of existent organizations and makes sure that they function efficiently,
though this is under the framework of judicial activism. The cases dealt under environment
protection are treated more like violation of fundamental rights rather than a civil wrong. As per
Article 21of the Indian constitution an individual has right to free and healthy environment and
in the breach of such right and individual can move to apex courts under Article 32. In the case
of Dehradun v. State of U.P the contention that arose was that the mining was affecting the forest
area of Mussoorie and accelerated soil erosion. The court treated this as a Writ Petition under
Article 32 and ordered closure of such mines, reforestation of the forests and also made sure that
people who were left unemployed due to closure of mines were given jobs elsewhere. Article
48-A of the constitution states protection of forests and wildlife. It basically makes people more
aware of the preservation of environment from pollution. The preservation of forests have been
long recognized concept in India by afforestation and with reference to rainfall and soil erosion.
Article 51-A(g) states that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes and wildlife and have compassion for all other living
creatures. In Sachdanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal the apex court has held that whenever
a problem regarding ecology is brought up before the court, the court is supposed to take Articles
48-A and 51-A(g) into consideration. In Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corporation Hyderabad the
court has clearly resorted to the mandates of Articles 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Indian
Constitution and also went to the extent stating that environmental pollution would be also
treated as violation of Article 21(fundamental right to life and personal liberty). In a landmark
case of Ratlam Municipal Corporation v. Vardhichand the judicial activism helped in upholding
social justice component by fixing the responsibilities of the statutory authorities to carry on their
legal duties in abating public nuisance and environment pollution. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
observed that “social justice is due to and therefore the people must be able to trigger off the
jurisdiction vested for their benefit to any public functioning.” Thus he recognized PIL as a
Constitutional obligation of the courts.
The main champion of environmental protection through judiciary has been MC Mehta. The
initial MC Mehta cases have enlarged the concepts of Right to life and healthy environment and
court has stated that judiciary has power to stop any of the ongoing hazardous activities in order
to preserve ecology and environment. The third MC Mehta case was a significant one which
imposed a question of the amount of compensation given to the victims of Oleum gas leak. The
case is significant because it emphasized on the liability of factories owners who carried out
hazardous activities. He has filed several other petitions which concerned the depletion of
environment on behalf of people affected or are likely to be affected by such discharge of
harmful chemicals. The Supreme Court of India has also further laid down for state governments
to lay working plans for protection of forests and wildlife and if state governments failed to do so
actions would be taken against them.

The Supreme Court of India discusses the issue of environmental problems not like any general
or basic issue; which is expected from the highest judiciary of the country. The court in its
decision presses more oj the executive ideas and their implementations. It has also been noted
due to extensive and rigorous steps taken by judiciary it has become a beacon of hope to people
in order to save the environment.

Important disposal of environment cases by Indian Judiciary

 Construction in Silent Valley – The Society for Protection of Silent Valley filed a
petition in Kerala High Court which stated to seek a ban on construction of hydro-
electric project in the valley. The court gave an unfavorable judgment but active
environmentalist stopped the project.
 Sanitation in Ratlam – Supreme Court in 1980 recognized the rapid urban development
and the adverse effect it had on poor. It was directly linked to the batsic public health
facilities and human rights and the municipality was compelled to give a proper
sanitation drainage.
 Gas leak in Shriram Factory – One of the most significant cases there was an oleum
gas leak from the food and fertilizer factory in Delhi. The court ordered the owners to
pay compensation to the victims. The case was treated as ‘absolute liability’ and it was
the very first time that the victims were paid compensation.
 The activist-advocate MC Mehta in 1985 filed a writ petition against the tanneries
operating nearby the river Ganga and discharging all its waste into the river. The
judgment was delivered in 1987 and was considered a historic judgment. The court
ordered closure of all the tanneries polluting the river near Kanpur.
 In 1992 in a historic judgment against vehicular pollution Supreme Court appointed a
retired judge along with three other members to recommend measures to be taken against
pollution. The court passed an order that all the new cars registered after April 1995
should be fitted with catalytic convertors. Delhi became the first city to have COG.
  A span motel owned by a family in Himachal Pradesh who was also a minister of
Environment and forests in govt. of India willfully diverted the course of Beas river in
order to beautify the motel. The Supreme Court ordered the management to remove all
the encroachments and hand over the forest are to Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. The court
ordered to pay fine of Rs.10,00,000 (ten lakhs) as exemplary damages. The court took
into account Polluter pays principle and public trust doctrine.

Environmental laws have seen a considerable amount of focus in the last three decades. The most
of its evolution has been due to the Indian Judiciary. PIL has also played a significant role in
jurisprudence of environment. The court has also breached a gap between lacunas and
implementation of laws and various laws itself. The court has also stated that healthy
environment is a fundamental right of the people. Prior to 1980 there were laws made but none
of them were implemented but now the judiciary has become strict and stringent.

References

 http://www.nluassam.ac.in/docs/lex%20terra/Lex%20Terra%20Issue%2032_5.pdf
 https://racolblegal.com/active-role-of-judiciary-in-the-environment/
 http://ilnu-jcel.org/critical-analysis-of-the-role-of-judiciary-in-conservation-of-forest/