INDIAN JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON THE 'RIGHT TO

ENVIRONMENT' : ADJUDICATION & LOCUS STANDI

Garima Prashad1

Abstract: The federal Constitution of India imposes duty on both the citizens and the State to protect and preserve the
environment, however the same is non-justifiable, i.e. not enforceable in the Courts of law. However, the active Indian
judiciary has extended the scope of judicial review even when such duties are not discharged in the manner they ought
to be, as they adversely affect the positive right of others to have an immaculate environment, thus issuing writs against
the government. This paper analyzes notion of Indian judicial activism on the fragile issue of environment protection
and evolution of environment jurisprudence in the contemporary India. The paper further highlights the commendable
efforts of the Indian Judiciary in acting as a sentinel on the qui vive, maintaining an equilibrium between progress and
environment, promoting sustainable development.
In the preceding decades, the doctrine of locus standi and standing has undergone phenomenal advancements. Now
public spirited individuals can file writ petitions in the High Courts and Supreme Court as Public Interest Litigation
without following the mandate of locus standi. For that matter, even the procedural requirements have been relaxed,
in the interest of justice and benefit of the masses. The Supreme Court while exercising its epistolary jurisdiction has
often treated letters written to it as writ petitions, granting remedies to that aggrieved strata of the society, who are
otherwise incapable or procuring justice for themselves. However, malicious and vexatious petitions are dismissed
with heavy costs.
The contents of the paper are divided into 6 parts. This paper has been prepared through doctrinal research
methodology. Reference have been made to various books, articles, law journals, news papers, case laws etc. The Ist
part explains the extended interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, i.e. Fundamental 'Right to life' and
the scope of Judicial Review in safeguarding these rights. However special emphasis has been made to the Right to
life vis-a-vis right to clean environment. Part II of the paper highlights the growth of Judicial activism in India on
environmental matters with an endeavour of sustainable development. Besides explaining the stages of growth of
judicial activism, a brief comparison of Indian judiciary has been made with the English and the American Judiciary.
This segment also highlights the active role of Special Environmental Courts and Benches established to deal with
such matters. Discussion regarding the scope and ambit of Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court
under Article 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India in the field of environmental access to justice has been enumerated
under Part III of the paper, while Part IV lays special emphasis on Writ Jurisdiction vis-a-vis Public Interest
Litigation(PIL). It highlights the new dimensions of the doctrine of standing in the realm of PIL, and emergence of
same as an effective and efficacious remedy in the matters pertaining to environmental degradation. Part V of the paper
describes the jurisdiction of the Sub-ordinate Judiciary in the matters of environmental concern. It explains all possible
ways by which the jurisdiction of the lower judiciary can be invoked for expeditious relief, both civil and criminal
jurisdiction. Consequently part VI highlights recent, active instances of the Higher Judiciary with special reference to
sustainable development in the field of atomic energy. The study has dealt with the active role of Indian Judiciary in
framing of environmental jurisprudence in the Country.

Keywords: Environmental Jurisprudence; Judicial Review; Locus Standi; Standing; Sustainable Development.

I. INTRODUCTION
The reason behind the ecological and environmental degradation is now irrefutable and has become a collective
concern for once, for the entire human race. Advancement in science and technology has also exposed the cons of such
advancement, and has thus exposed 'us' to an out of option situation. Strict adherence and compliance with the laws of
the nature is made mandatory by the laws made by man, especially for those who fail to take moral responsibility for
the same. Whereas, in a country like India moral responsibilities to protect the same has also been embodied in the law
of the land(Constitution) for both, the citizens and the state as their fundamental duties[1] and directive principles[2].
However when such duties are neglected and denied by any of the two, it leads to infringement of rights of others to
have an immaculate environment, and thus the jurisdictions of the Courts are invoked. The judiciary in India enjoys a
vast ambit of Judicial Review to redress the issues of the masses.
The Scope of Judicial Review before the Indian Courts has evolved in three dimensions - firstly, to ensure fairness in
administrative action, secondly, to protect the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of citizens and thirdly to
1
Advocate, Supreme Court of India.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3391846

rule on question of legislative competence between the centre and the states[3]. However the term 'Judicial Review'
undermines the active role which the Indian Judiciary has played in an inquisitorial manner to enforce the rights of the
citizens vis-a-vis development, often doing away with various procedural rigidities and has on various instances
allowed letters as writs, exercising its 'epistolary jurisdiction'. Reference maybe made in this regard to the landmark
case of R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh(1985)[4], popularly known as the Doon Valley Case,
where a group of citizens wrote to the Supreme Court against the progressive mining which denuded the Mussoorie
Hills of trees and forest cover and accelerated soil erosion resulting in landslides and blockage of underground water
channels which fed many rivers and springs in the valley. The Court ordered the registry to treat the letter as writ
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (epistolary jurisdiction). Furthermore, not only the top judiciary i.e. The
High Courts and the Apex Court but entire hierarchy of Indian Judicial system plays an active and pivotal role in
safeguarding the most precious fundamental right of its citizens and non citizens i.e. "Right to Life", enshrined under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution(hereinafter referred to as Article 21), through different enforcement mechanisms,
discussed subsequently. Since both the society and law are dynamic in nature, Article 21 has precisely been interpreted
to cover within its ambit "Right to live in a healthy environment"[5] along with various other rights. Therefore, the
judiciary in India has not only provided an impetus to the Human Right approach for the protection of environment,
but the manner in which the judiciary is protecting the environment while promoting sustainable development, the
judiciary has created a new "environmental jurisprudence"[6].
The language of Article 21 creates a positive right on which restrictions can be imposed by a procedure established by
law, however the pragmatic Judicial approach in India has mostly negated such procedures when such positive rights
are infringed even to the diminutive extent, thus adopting zero tolerance policy against any procedure which fails to
maintain an equilibrium between the environment and the growth of the Country, which is also of paramount
importance. It is therefore pertinent to highlight, the mechanisms developed by the Indian Judiciary to extend the ambit
of Locus Standi and giving way to public interest litigation, safeguarding the environment vis-a-vis sustainable
development.

II. GROWTH OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS : A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Activism for environment protection in India can be traced back to the ancient India. Our ancestors had realised the
importance of the tie between man and his environment[7]. Vedas are known to be the sources of all kinds of
knowledge. The Samaveda notes the Flute of Divine Love by saying: "The earth, the sea, the sky, the stars are all
woven together by the soft strains of the divine music. Its vibrants echo through the corridors of time in the endless
canopy of the sky"[8]. One may venture to add that the relevance of Rule of Law in this regard is the community
obligation of seeking knowledge and preserving what ancient Indian thought propounded, viz., the law of Dharma as
the rule of Rulers and aspiration for an organised social life as expressed in Rig Veda. This could be described as the
principle of preservation of orders of Nature through the effective process of subjugating economic and productive
activities of the State through participatory law[9]. However, post industrialization and independence, strict adherence
to these given set of rules required strict compliance. The Apex Court of India, was only able to come into its own, as
an institution in the 1980s as during the 70's the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi tried to suppress the judiciary
by altering the appointment of the Chief Justice of India, in the manner of seniority and tried to curb the jurisdiction
and power of the judiciary. The emergency imposed by the Government of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1975 had adversely
affected the morale and spirit of the Supreme Court in 1970's[10]. The Court commenced its dynamic role in
safeguarding and protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens and in putting an effective check on the other two
organs of the state viz; the Executive and Legislature only in the 1980's. It has become possible, solely due to the
dynamism and willingness of a few judges like Justice Krishna Iyer, Justice Chandrachud, Justice Bhagwati and Justice
Chinnappa Reddy. This list is only illustrative in nature[11]. This began the era of doctrine of mass justice and
emergence of public interest litigation(PIL), by relaxing the rigidity of procedures and locus standi. It is pertinent to
note that the environmental jurisprudence in the United States of America was once an example for India and
incorporates the provisions for express judicial review, for e.g. 'any person' or 'any citizen' may bring an action even
though the breach of law has not directly affected him[12], however it is surprising to note that the Supreme Court of
U.S. has repeatedly insisted on locus standi to reject public interest litigation without consideration of the merits of the
case[13]. The similar format has been followed by the British Courts under a unitary constitution, as they cannot
override the legislation passed by the parliament. Although Lord Diplock in R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p
National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Business Ltd.(1982)[14] asserted that :
'It would, my view, be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group, like federation, or even a single
public-spirited tax payer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the
attention to the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful stopped'.
Yet, under English law, in order to challenge administrative decisions, it is necessary for the person or persons seeking
judicial review to demonstrate the requisite of locus standi. The case of R v. Secretary of State for the Environment,
ex p Rose Theatre Trust(1990) exhibits restrictive approach to judicial review actions brought by pressure groups on

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3391846

public interest and environmental protection matters[15]. Brief facts of the same maybe pertinent to be noted. In this
case developers had been granted planning permission to build an office block on the site of an Elizabethan theatre,
the Rose Theatre, in London. A trust company had been set up by numerous campaigners to preserve the ruins of the
Theatre, which was of particular historical importance because it boasted two first performances of Shakespeare's
plays. The Rose Theatre trust sought to persuade the secretary of state to designate the site as one of the national
importance and include it in the list of monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. If the Secretary of State had
done this, it would have meant that no work could have began on the site without his consent. The secretary of state
agreed but decided that it would not fall within the relevant legislation. The theatre trust brought the action for judicial
review alleging the illegality of the Secretary of State's decision. The question was whether or not the Trust had :
'..."sufficient interest" to bring such an action. Members of the Trust argued that since they had entered into
correspondence with the Secretary of State they had necessary interest. However, the Court found that the Trust did
not have Locus Standi. In reaching this decision, the court held that a challenger must show that he has "sufficient
interest in the application to which the matter related". Schiemann J stated that it was necessary to consider the Statutte
to determine whether it afforded standing to these individuals in this instance[16].
Therefore, in light of above ratios and dictums and standing of various judicial bodies on the fragile issue of
environment, Indian Judiciary has earned admiration. Withstanding the fact that India is a growing economy and needs
advancements in the industrialisation for all round development, the role played by judiciary is exemplary in
maintaining sustainable development. Withstanding plethora of environment protective legislations in India, the
Judiciary has become the epic centre for redressal of environment related wrongs.
Furthermore, even though it is not the function of the Courts to see that day to day enforcement of environmental law,
that being the function of the executive, but inefficiency and non functioning of the enforcement agencies to implement
the law has made it necessary for the courts to pass orders directing them to implement the law for the protection of
the fundamental right of people to live in a healthy environment. Passing of the appropriate orders requiring
implementation of the law cannot be regarded as the court having usurped the function of the legislature or the
executive[17]. The only consideration in such cases is regarding the bona fide of the petitioners, which will
subsequently be discussed.
The scope and extent of judicial activism in India is not merely restricted to the matters that are brought before the
Courts or where the Courts have acted suo motto. Since the Apex Court has observed a sharp rise in the matters
requiring environmental adjudication, it has suggested the setting up of Environmental Courts on the regional basis
with one professional judge and two experts drawn from Ecological Science Research group keeping in view the nature
of the case and expertise required for its adjudication[18]. The decisions of these Courts will ofcourse be susceptible
to judicial review by the Apex Court[19]. The Supreme Court has further ordered the High Courts to constitute a
Special Bench known as "Green Bench" to adjudicate such matters[20], and are thus already operating in the High
Courts of Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Allahabad and Punjab & Haryana respectively. Since the High Courts
are in a better position to understand the gravity of the circumstances in their respective states, they should preferably
be the first ones to be approached[21]. In H-Acid Case[22], the Supreme Court reiterated the need for creating
"environmental courts" which alone shold be empowered to deal with all matters, civil, criminal, relating to
environment. The government has set up the National Environment Appellate Authority in 1998 to hear the appeals
with respect to restrictions of area in which any industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be
carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Law and society are inter-
connected. Law needs to grow and evolve at pace with society to meet the needs of the masses. Justice Holmes has
rightly remarked that "life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience"[23].

III. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO 'LIFE' AND WRIT JURISDICTION

Right to live in a healthy and clean environment is a fundamental right[24] of all the 'persons'[25] residing within the
territory of India. The judicial grammar of interpretation has made "right to live in healthy environment" as the sanctum
sanctorum of Human Rights[26]. The power to review state action by the High Courts and the Supreme Court is
envisaged under Article 226 and 32 of the Constitution respectively. It may be noted here that the ambit of Article 226
is much wider than Article 32 of the Constitution. The High Court's may even extend their Writ jurisdictions on matters
where the principles of natural justice are neglected, or where an alternate or efficacious remedy has not been
exhausted. In entertaining the petitions under the Writ jurisdiction, Courts are not bound by the narrow provisions of
the existing industrial safety and environmental legislations. They may provide any relief or take any action necessary
to meet the ends of justice and safeguard the fundamental rights of the masses.
In the L.K. Koolwal case[27] a writ petition was filed in the Rajasthan High Court against the Jaipur Municipal
Council(JMC), Rajasthan, to clean certain areas of the city. Subsequently the Court appointed a commissioner to note
the gravity of issue. Based on the analysis, the High Court ordered the areas to be cleaned. Cases of these kinds clearly
exhibit that the Courts did not turn a blind eye on such issues believing the government agencies, rather adopted
innovative ways like setting up of fact finding commissions to resolve environmental disputes. The exercise of writ

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3391846

jurisdiction has assumed significance in environmental litigation as a result of judicial attitude to treat the issues
affecting fragile ecosystem as the fundamental right to life and personal liberty[28].
The dictum of Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Damodar Rao Case[29] unambiguously enunciates that "...[I]t would
be reasonable to hold that the enjoyment of life and its attainment and fulfilment guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts without (which) life cannot be enjoyed. There
can be no reason why practice of violent extinguishment of life alone should be regarded as violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution. the slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoliation
should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution[30].
The judicial attitude especially on the environmental facet of Article 21 has been exemplary. As earlier discussed, the
Supreme Court has on various instances, ignored procedural mandates and treated letters as writs[31]. Another
landmark case in the history of environmental jurisprudence is the Ganga Pollution case[32], wherein the petitioner
sought to enforce the fundamental right to clean and hygienic environment as part of the right to life and liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
observed, "We are conscious that closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and
ecology have greater importance to the people.", however no reference was made to "right to life" in the whole
judgement. The important question whether the tanneries could be subjected to the discipline of the fundamental right,
also remained untouched. This was more significant in the background of the Shriram Chemicals case where the five
judge bench had left the question open whether a private corporation or industry would come within the ambit of
Article 12[33]. The judgement seems to have been based on Articles 51A(g) and 48A of the Indian Constitution, which
relate to environment protection[34]. There are plethora of Supreme Court Judgements[35], which highlights "healthy
environment" as the most essential ingredient of right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
India has observed phenomenal growth in the exercise of writ jurisdiction both under Article 32 and 226 of the
Constitution of India in recent decades. However, the topic would remain incomplete without discussing the concept
of Public Interest Litigation vis-a-vis writ jurisdiction.

IV. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND WRIT JURISDICTION: RELAXATION OF LOCUS STANDI
Another significant leap in the realm of 'access to environmental justice' is the relaxation of the traditional notion of
locus standi. Earlier, when environmentalists approached the courts, without being directly aggrieved or affected, relief
was denied as the Court focussed its attention on the identity of the petitioner rather than the subject of the petition,
i.e. environmental rights. However, now the attitude of the Courts in this regard has taken a 360 degrees turn. Bona
fide petitions for environmental protections are being entertained both by High Courts and Supreme Court under
Article 226 and 32 respectively, even where the petitioner does not have a direct standing in the matter. This type of
standing is meant to defend the rights which are so diffused among the public such that generally no individual right
per se can be enforced[36]. Therefore any individual or association who claims a right to conserve and improve
environment in social interest may approach the courts for environmental justice even though he/she may not be
directly affected[37]. One of the earliest cases where the Public Interest Litigation originated was the Society for
Protection of Silent Valley case[38]. In this case, a petition was filed by a voluntary organisation seeking to refrain the
State of Kerala from proceeding to construct a hydroelectric project at the Silent Valley. The organization asserted that
it would disturb the ecological balance of the area. Although High Court dismissed this petition without giving proper
reason, this case created public awareness about the importance of ecological balance.
However, such public interest litigations must be bonafide in nature. In Subash Kumar's case(1991)[39], the Supreme
Court reprimanded the petitioner for abusing the process of the court, whose mere intention was harass the company
and make profit to boot. The court dismissed the petition with costs and holding that "Personal interest cannot be
enforced through the process of this court under Art.32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation.
Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceedings for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a
group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity,
poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.32 must approach this court for
the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal
grudge or enmity. It is [the] duty of this court to discourage such petition and to ensure that the course of justice is not
obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court for personal
matters under the garb of public interest litigation[40]. Likewise in Chhetriya Padushan Mukti Sangharash Samiti v.
State of U.P.(1990)[41], the Supreme Court rejected a petition which was motivated by an ancient grudge and enmity.
Furthermore, under the hood of public interest litigation, procedural safeguards too have been relaxed in order to grant
relief. It has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter
of grave public importance is for consideration before the court[42]. For instance, the Supreme Court and the High
Court's frequently treat letters written to individual judges or the court as writ petitions[43]. In a case a j ournalist
complained to the Supreme Court that the national coastline was being sullied by unplanned development that violated
a Central Government directive. the Supreme Court registered the letter a writ petition, requested the court's legal aid

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3391846

committee to appoint a lawyer for the petitioner and issued notice to the Union Government and the government of all
the coastal states[44]. The advent and growth of Public Interest Litigation can be said to be an 'golden achievement' in
the history of environmental jurisprudence of India, developed by one of the most dynamic judiciary of the world.

V. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY

As discussed earlier the active role played by judiciary in the protection of environment is not merely restricted to the
Higher Judiciary in India. The subordinate judiciary has equally invoked jurisdiction in order to maintain status quo at
the grass root level itself. Apart from Civil liability and action for nuisance under the civil law, which can be instituted
by the Advocate General or by two or more members of the public with the permission of the Court for a declaration
or an injunction or both, one of the most efficacious remedy to expeditiously deal with the degradation of environment,
causing public nuisance is the institution of criminal proceedings before a magistrate under S.133 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.) which talks about "Conditional order for removal of nuisance".
However persons who cause environmental pollution by conducting offensive trade affecting health and comfort of
those dwelling in the neighbourhood, are liable to be prosecuted under the Indian Penal code for causing public
nuisance[45]. S.133 of the Cr. P.C provides an independent, speedy and summary remedy against public nuisance, and
empowers the magistrate to remove public nuisance, thus proving to be a significant tool for environmental
protection[46].
The Calcutta High Court Judgement in the Galstauns Case(1905)[47], maybe said to be the earliest reported case
relating to pollution. The decision reflects that the common law regulatory system had effectively checked the polluters
even in the pre-industrial society. The Court held that no private person can claim a right to foul an ordinary drain by
discharging into it what is not intended to carry off and then throw on the municipality an obligation to alter the drain
in order to remedy the nuisance. Thus, the plaintiff was held entitled a perpetual injunction to abate the nuisance[48].
On the issue of Magistrate's power to regulate environmental pollution by restraining public nuisance, the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh considered a petition filed by Nagarjuna Paper Mills in which the appellant mill had challenged the
Magistrate's conditional order closing down a paper mill for failure to take adequate pollution control measures and
also claimed that only the State Pollution Control Board has the power to regulate air and water pollution. However,
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected this argument and upheld the Magistrate's pwer to regulate environment
pollution by restraining the public nuisance[49]. This ratio clearly exhibits the co-ordination and firm stand of the
judicial bodies on the pivotal issue of environment. The judiciary has been acting like a Sentinel on the qui vive[50].
The remedy of S.133 has been effectively used to deal with perpetrators of unregulated air pollution[51]. The Supreme
Court in the landmark case of Ratlam's(1980)[52], upheld the Magistrate power to check pollution causing nuisance.
The judgement in Ratlams case clearly recognised the serious impact of deteriorating urban environment, which has
the effect of ignoring the constitutional directives of basic public health facilities, human right and the injunctions laid
down as state policy under Indian Constitution. The Court viewed that active judiciary can compel the municipalities
to provide proper sanitation and drainage facilities. The above decision is landmark in the history of judicial activism
because it upholds social justice component of the rule of law by fixing liability on statutory authorities. It mandates
them to discharge their legal obligation towards the public at large in abating the public nuisance, leading to a clean
environment. In the instant case, the power given to the Magistrate under the Cr. P.C. has been developed to check
pollution causing nuisance. The common law has paved the way to a new enforcement dimension to control pollution
through the judicial process with the help of Section 133 of the Cr. P.C.[53].

VI. CONCLUSION
India is a developing nation. Industrialization is thus of paramount importance, as it strengthens the economy, brings
technical progress to the country, raises incomes of the masses, provides jobs etc., however, every pro has a con (Pro
et Contra). But the Judiciary in India has maintained an equilibrium between progress and environment hence
promoting sustainable development. The Indian judiciary has held that "The Polluter Pays" principle and "The
Precautionary Principle" are the essential features of "Sustainable Development"[54]. Since industrialization requires
power and energy, India in the recent decades have made advancements in the field of atomic energy as well. However,
this amounted in hue and cry amongst the residents of the area within whose circumference the plants are being set up,
and writs have been filed, not merely because their lands were being acquired, but also due because such plants would
release effluents into the nearby water bodies and further deteriorate the already deteriorating environment.
Taking note of the gravity of situation, and balance between progress, requirement and environment, the Court in the
matter of Kundankulam Power Plant, Tamil Nadu observed, "that the Court has to respect the nuclear policy of the
Country reflected in the Atomic Energy Act and the same has to be given effect to for the welfare of the people and
the Country, it is with these objectives in mind KKNPP has been set up[55]." Furthermore, Green Courts and Benches
are functioning actively to the best of their capacity. Recently in a blow the brick kiln industry and road contractors,
the National Green Tribunal in September, 2013 has banned digging of earth across the country for making bricks and
laying roads without prior environment clearance[56]. Thus, the pragmatic approach adopted by the Judiciary on the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3391846

fragile issue of environment vis-a-vis development is commendable. Relaxation in the rule of standing or locus standi,
has given a new dimension to the concept of rule of law and has thus evolved a contemporary environmental
jurisprudence which is hyper active, in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the masses as the 'Right to Life'
supersedes and transgresses all other fundamental and justifiable rights.

REFERENCES
[1] Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India(Part V).
[2] Article 48-A of the Constitution of India(Part IV).
[3] Hon'ble Mr. K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, 2009) explained the
ambit of Judicial review in India, (p. 3).
[4] R.L.&E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 652.
[5] Id., at 653. The Court observed: "This is the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to
environment and ecological balance and the questions arising for consideration are of grave moment and
significance not only to the people residing in the Mussoorie Hill range...but also in their implications to the welfare
of the generality of people, living in this country."
[6] Paramjit S. Jaswal, Directive Principles Jurisprudence And Socio-Economic Justice in India, 543 (1996).
[7] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, (1991) 2 SCC 353.
[8] Dr. N. Maheswara Swamy. (2000). Constitutional Provisions and Role of Judiciary in protecting environment from
pollution - An appraisal. Andhra Law Times, Vol. CVI, 1-8.
[9] R. Venkataramani. (1997). Judicial Review and Environment Adjudication. Law and Justice. Vol.4-7, 181-92.
[10] G.L. Reddy. (2001). Judicial Activism in India (1st ed.). Hyderabad, India: Gogia Law Agency.
[11] Id. at 6.
[12] Shyam Diwan., Armin Rosencranz.(2012). Environmental Law, and Policy in India (2nd Ed.). USA: Oxford India
Paperbacks.
[13] Warth v. Seldin, 422 US(1975); Simon v. Eastern Kuntucky Welfare Rights Organisation, 426 US 26 (1976);
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 US 464(1982). See
also Sonia Hurra.(1993), Public Interest Litigation in Quest of Justice. Mishra & Company.
[14] R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Business Ltd,
[1981] UKHL 2.
[15] Susan Wolf., Anna.(1995), Environmental Law. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
[16] Id. at 142.
[17] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281 at 294( popularly known as Coastal
Protection Case).
[18] P.S. Jaswal., Nishtha Jaswal.(2011). Environmental Law. Faridabad, Haryana, India: Allahabad Law Agency.
[19] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 965 at 982.
[20] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 at 669. (This case is popularly known as
T.N. Tanneries Case).
[21] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281 at 303 (popularly known as Coastal
Protection Case); Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 181 at 196.
[22] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
[23] Oliver Wendell Holmes.(1881), The Common law. quoted in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991)
4 SCC 584 at 609.
[24] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086. (popularly known as Oleum Gas leakage case).
[25] Benefits of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is available to both citizens and non-citizens residing within the
territory of Union of India.
[26] Supra note 18 at 52.
[27] L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1988 Raj 2.
[28] supra note 12 at 120.
[29] T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation, Hydrabad, A.I.R., 1987 A.P. 171.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Supra note 4.
[32] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1988 SC 1037; (1987) 4 SCC 463 (Ganga Pollution by Tanneries Case).
[33] For the purpose of the Part-III of the Indian Constitution, which related to Fundamental Rights, "the State" includes
the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all
local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the Control of the Government of India.
[34] Supra note 12 at 125.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3391846

[35] Obbayya Pujari v. Member Secretary, KSPCB, Banglore, A.I.R. 1999 Kant. 157; Bheemagiri Bhaskar v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Bhongir, A.I.R. 2001 A.P. 492 at 498-499; P.A. Jacob v. Suprintendent of Police, Kottayam,
A.I.R. 1993 Ker. 1, Law Society of India v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., A.I.R. 1994 M.P. 48, etc.
[36] Supra note 12 at 133.
[37] S.N. Rao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1988 SC 712 at 716.
[38] Society for Protection of Silent Valley v. Union of India, Unreported Judgement, O.P. No.3025 of 1979, Kerala
High Court.
[39] Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
[40] Id. at 424.
[41] Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of UP, AIR 1990 SC 2060.
[42] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehra dun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1988 SC 2187, 2195.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Mahesh R. Desai v. Union of India, WP. No. 989 of 1988
[45] S.290 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[46] Nagarjuna Paper Mills v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sangareddym 1987, Cr. L.J 2071 (A.P.).
[47] J.C. Gastaun v. Dunia Lal Seal, (1905) 9 CWN 612 (Cal).
[48] Supra note 12 at 116.
[49] Supra note 46.
[50] On the Alert; Vigilant.
[51] Krishna Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1986) Cr. L.J. 396 (M.P.).
[52] Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhi Chand, AIR 1980 SC 1622.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Supra note 20.
[55] G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2013.
[56] Editorial,. (2013, September 29). Digging of earth for brick making banned. The Hindu, p. 2.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3391846