T.N. Godavarman v.

Thirumulpad
T.N. Godavarman has played a vital role with regards to the conservation and protection of
the environment. He is popularly known as ‘the Green Man’. This landmark case is also
known as ‘the Forest Case in India’.  It was regarding the control and supervision of the
forests of India. T.N. Godavarman lodged a writ petition in the apex court of India. The main
objective of the writ petition was to safeguard and protect the forest land of the Nilgiris as it
was exploited through deforestation by unlawful timber activities. The main highlight of this
case was that it was to conserve the forest. The Supreme Court issued directives to use the
forest and its resources sustainably. And also told that it should incorporate a self-monitoring
mechanism at the same time. The court stated that an implementation system should be
formed at the regional and state level. This was to control the transportation of timber. the
State was unable to protect the areas. Trees were being felled and logs rolled down the
mountain slopes and stacked along the highway for miles on end. 

Issues in this case raised were whether  the new interpretation of Section 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act and forest land is violative and whether the usage of timber for commercial
purposes is justified.
On December 12, 1996, a bench led by Chief Justice J.S. Verma passed an interim order
directing that tree-felling and non-forestry activity in forests across the country be stopped.
The path-breaking order re-defined the meaning of forests and extended protection to all
areas with natural forests irrespective of their ownership. It laid down that ‘forests’ will be
understood by its dictionary meaning, and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act
1980, shall apply to all thickly wooded areas. States were directed to form expert committees
to identify forests as defined and file reports. 
A complete restriction is there on the transportation of cut trees and timber from any part of
the seven northeastern states of India. There should be no movement of wood through rail,
road or waterways from these parts. The India railways and the state authorities have taken
restrictive measures to protect and ensure there is no violation. The defendants were also
asked to find substitutes for wood. A high power committee was formed to look into the
implementation of the verdict and the orders made by the court. The committee formulates
inventory of timber and its commodities that the forest uses to transport the depots and mills
in that area. The high power committee gave strength to allow the usage and the sale of
timber goods if it was recognised by the State Forest Corporation.
The licenses that were with all the wood-based industries were cancelled. A new action plan
was instituted
The important highlight of the case is the presence of the Indian Constitution, which deals
with the powers of the Central and State governments concerning safeguarding and protection
of the natural resources from illegal activities. Article 48A mentions that the state will
venture to secure and enhance the environment and also features a duty to guard the forest
and wildlife of our nation. Article 51A bestows on all the citizens of India the requirement to
conserve and uplift the natural environment comprising rivers, lakes, forests, wildlife and to
possess benevolence towards all living beings. 
LK Koolwal v/s state of Rajasthan

the Court held that the Municipality has failed to discharge its "primary duty" resulting in the
acute sanitation problem in Jaipur city which is hazardous to the life of the citizens of the
city. In this case the Court explained the true scope of Article 51-A in the following words:
"We can call Article 51-A ordinarily as the duty of the citizens, but in fact it is the right of the
citizens as it creates the right in favour of the citizens to move to the court to see that the
State performs its duties faithfully and the obligatory and primary duties are performed in
accordance with the law of the land. Omissions or commissions are brought to the notice of
the court by the citizen and thus, Article 51-A gives a right to the citizens to move the court
for the enforcement of the duty cast on the state, instrumentalities, agencies, departments,
local bodies and statutory authorities created under the particular law of the state".

Jacob v/s Union of india

This petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeks direction for
implementation of guidelines issued by this Court in Destruction of Public and Private
Properties. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner is an advocate. He was
forced to spend more than 12 hours on road to reach his home after being discharged from
hospital after surgery on 23rd May, 2012, on account of an on-going agitation. According to
the petitioner, large number of strikes/ agitations have taken place resulting in destruction of
public property and also resulting in violation of fundamental right of the people for which
suitable remedy is not available to the aggrieved victims.
Committees appointed by this Court in the above case recommended statutory amendments
for making those sponsoring such agitations accountable and punishable under the criminal
law and also requiring preventive and remedial actions such as video graphy of all the
activities and award for damages. 
Advocate was not granted any compensation since the organisers of the
agitation were not present before the Court. However, the Court reiterated
that the law must be amended to include all the guidelines issued by the
Court. 

Rabin Mukherjee v/s state

Use of electronic and/or air horn instead of bulb horn. It creates noise pollution and
it has adverse effect on public health. Indiscriminate use of such horn is amounting
to noise pollution in the city . Sudden blowing of such horn by Transport vehicles
are producing rude shock in the human system and is acknowledged to have
serious effect on various aspects of human life including blood pressure, mental
and nerve system. Referring to studies of noise pollution, the Supreme Court
concluded that the noise pollution arising from the use of loud horns, in violation
of the above mentioned Rule, is injurious to health and was among the different
causes of environmental pollution. Court directed the State Authorities to issue
notifications immediately regarding the restrictions contained in the Rule and
direct the removal of electric or air horns which create a loud or shrill sound, and
to ensure that no fitness certificate is granted to vehicles in the case of non
compliance with the Rule.
 S Jaganath v/s Union of India

The Court referred to expert reports to identify the adverse impacts of coastal
pollution caused by non-traditional and unregulated prawn farming. The Court
decided that prawn farming industries were prohibited in the coastal
regulation zones. The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms right
on the sea coast hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology,
coastal environment and the aesthetic uses of the sea coast’.