JUSTICE AND THE ENVIRONMENT:

CONCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY

RESEARCH PAPER
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS (301)
Professional Skill Development Activity

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms Manini Syali Malvika Raj

Assistant Professor BA LLB
Semester- V
Date of Submission: Section- C
13th January, 2023 12817703820

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
2022
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work would not have been possible without the support of the law department,
Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies (VSLLS) and the college, Vivekananda
Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS). I am especially indebted to Dr. Rashmi Salpekar,
Dean of the law department, for giving me the opportunity to pursue this research paper. I’m
grateful to Ms. Manini Syali, Assistant Professor who have been supportive of my research
paper and who worked actively to provide me with the protected academic time to pursue it. I
would like to thank my parents for their motivation and support.

CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

1.1.1 MEANING
1.1.2 ORIGIN

2. ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN INDIA

2.1 ENVIRONEMNTAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

2.1.1 FACILITATING AND PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

2.1.2 INDIAN CONTEXT

3. INDIAN JUDICIARY

3.1 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3.1.1 MEANING
3.1.2 APPLICATION IN INDIA

3.2 THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

3.2.1 ABOUT
3.2.2 APPLICATION IN INDIA

4. CONCLUSION
 ABSTRACT

It supports the rule of law by fostering outcomes that are fair and just. In
international agreements, the significance of judicial institutions—courts and
special tribunals for the resolution of environmental disputes—is widely
acknowledged. According to Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration,
"effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress
and remedy, shall be provided by states in environmental matters," access rights
are strengthened. India's commitment to ensuring environmental justice takes on
significant practical significance in this setting. Socioeconomic disparities and
environmental degradation can fade into the background during periods of rapid
economic expansion and industrialization. The concept of broad and liberal
litigant "standing" in environmental matters facilitated by the Supreme Court of
India through Green Benches in state high courts , Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) and "aggrieved party" by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) are among
the legal measures developed by the Indian judiciary to address environmental
issues. Additionally, the country employs environmental impact assessment
(EIA), a method for anticipating and avoiding negative development effects.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

1.1.1 MEANING
The rational sharing of the burdens and costs associated with environmental
protection is referred to as environmental justice. This is accomplished through
substantive and procedural adjustments to people's and states' rights and
responsibilities. Intergenerational equity, i.e. the emerging notion that we
humans have a special obligation as custodians or trustees of the planet toward
the future generations that are to come to preserve our planet, maintain the
planet's integrity, and ensure the survival of the human race, is also relevant.
This is not limited to the distribution and division of resources among the
populations that are currently present but to the future generations as well.

1.1.2 ORIGIN
The environmental justice traces its origin to the 1992 UN Declaration on
Environment and Development, also known as the Rio Declaration. Every
human being on this planet has the right to grow up in a healthy environment,
regardless of who they are or where they come from. This was demonstrated in
the Rio Declaration, which emphasized the connection between environmental
degradation and poverty. The Rio Declaration even lays out the principle of
"common but differentiated responsibilities," whose main goal is to ensure that
 everyone progresses toward a healthy environment and that there will be no
discrimination or differentiation in adherence. The declaration also emphasized
the different economic and social conditions that exist for various states and UN
member nations, including developed and developing nations.
Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, 1992 states that- environmental issues are
best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant
level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to
information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities,
including information on hazardous materials and activities in their
communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.
States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by
making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and
administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.
Indian environmentalism has, for the most part, been about social justice. It was
concerned with different levels of access to natural resources and ecosystem
services in the 1970s and 1980s. The Bhopal Gas Disaster of 1984 raised new
issues, pertaining to industrial risk and safety. By the end of the 20th century, it
became more and more clear that India's economic policies had a devastating
effect on the environment.

2. ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN INDIA

2.1 ENVIRONEMNTAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

2.1.1 FACILITATING AND PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE
There is growing support for judges to play a central role in providing dispute
resolution mechanisms that are accessible, fair, impartial, timely, and
responsive. Among these are the development of specialized expertise in
environmental adjudication as well as novel environmental procedures and
treatments. The judiciary's role in substantively defending individuals' rights
and facilitating access to the judicial process has been recognized and
emphasized by a number of international forums.
For example, Agenda 21 emphasises the need to provide an effective regulatory
framework for improving the legal–institutional capacities of countries to cope
with problems of national governance and effective law-making and law-
applying in this field. The Johannesburg Principles on the Role of Law and
Sustainable Development adopted at the Global Judges Symposium in
Johannesburg 2002 state:
‘We emphasize that the fragile state of the global environment requires the
Judiciary as the guardian of the Rule of Law, to boldly and fearlessly implement
and enforce applicable international and national laws… We are strongly of the
view that there is an urgent need to strengthen the capacity of judges, prosecutors,
legislators and all persons who play a critical role at national level in the process of
 implementation, development and enforcement of environmental law, including
multilateral environmental agreements… especially through the judicial process.’ 1

2.1.2 INDIAN CONTEXT

The Indian judiciary's function gains significance. The rule of law is bolstered
by access to justice, a democratic governance pillar that promotes just and
equitable outcomes.
In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v Union of India2, the Supreme Court
stated:
“The right of effective access to justice has emerged with the new social
rights. Indeed, it is of paramount importance among these new rights since,
clearly, the enjoyment of traditional as well as new social rights presupposes
mechanisms for their effective protection. Such protection, moreover, is best
assured by a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system.
Effective access to justice can thus be seen as the most basic requirement-the
most basic ‘human right’-of a system which purports to guarantee legal
rights.”3
In Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar4, the Court observed that:
“Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it
included the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of
life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life then in derogation of laws,
a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution.”

3. INDIAN JUDICIARY

3.1 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3.1.1 MEANING
The term "Public Interest Litigation" comes from American law, which was
meant to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups like
the poor, racial minorities, unorganized consumers, and citizens who were
passionate about environmental issues, among other things.
The term "Public Interest Litigation" (PIL) refers to legal proceedings brought
in a court of law to safeguard "Public Interest" issues such as pollution,
terrorism, road safety, constructional hazards, and so on. A Public Interest
Litigation can be filed in a court of law to rectify any issue affecting the public
interest.
1
Www.unep.org/delc/judgesprogramme/GlobalJudgesSymposium/tabid/106158/Default. aspx. See also London
Bridge Statement 2002 http://weavingaweb.org/pdfdocuments/ London%20 Bridge%20Statement.pdf; Rome
Symposium 2003 http://weavingaweb.org/ pdfdocuments/ LN290304-Rome%20Statement%20FINAL.pdf;
Justice Paul Stein, Why judges are essential to the rule of law and environmental protection
https://portals.iucn.org/library/efi les/ html/EPLP-060/section9.html; Justice Amedeo Postiglione, Th e role of
the judiciary in the implementation and enforcement of environmental law www.eufj e.org/images/docConf/
bud2014/presAP2%20bud2014.pdf.
2
AIR 1981 SC 344.
3
Id. at p. 586.
4
AIR 1991 SC 420.
 There is no statute or act that defines public interest litigation. Judges have
interpreted it to take into account the public's intent.
Judicial activism grants the public power through public interest litigation.
However, the petitioner must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the
petition is being filed in the public interest and not as a frivolous lawsuit by a
busy person. The case can be started on the petition of any public-spirited
individual, or the court can take over and proceed on its own.
In Anirudh Kumar v MCD5 the court stated:
“Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould.
It is broad-based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through ‘class
actions’, ‘public interest litigation’ and ‘representative proceedings’. Indeed,
Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through collective proceedings,
instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of
participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the
narrow concept of ‘cause of action’ and ‘person aggrieved’ and individual litigation
is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions.”6

3.1.2 APPLICATION IN INDIA

Environmental PIL is the result of the higher judiciary's response to the state's
inaction or state agencies' failure to carry out their statutory responsibilities,
which endangered or harmed people's quality of life as guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution. Human rights and the environment have been brought together in
the courts over the past two decades, and in the absence of legislation, PIL
petitions from various groups have sought solutions, such as guidelines and
instructions. For victims of environmental degradation, the utilization of PIL as
an all-encompassing, people-centered strategy that facilitates access to justice has
evolved into a "wheel of transformation." Overall, the "collaborative approach,"
"procedural flexibility," "judicially supervised interim orders," and "forward-
looking relief" gained social legitimacy. In this regard, India's environmental
landscape has undergone a significant transformation as a result of three
constitutional provisions—Articles 21, 48 A, and 51A (g). Because the right to
life is a fundamental right, Article 21 guarantees it. By providing an expansive
interpretation of the term "life," the Supreme Court has expanded its case law for
environmental protection to include the protection and preservation of the
environment, ecological balance which is free of air and water pollution, and
sanitation, without which life cannot be enjoyed.
In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure 7
the court stated:
“… it must be noted that the right to a clean and healthy environment is within the
ambit of Article 21, as has been noted in Court on its Own Motion v Union of India 8
in the following words: – The scheme under the Indian Constitution unambiguously
enshrines in itself the right of a citizen to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The right to life is a right to live with dignity, safety and in a clean environment.” 9
5
AIR (2015) 7 SCC 779.
6
Id. at p.780.
7
(2014) 4 SCC 538.
8
2012 (12) SCALE 307.
9
Id. at p. 556; see also Delhi Jal Board v National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied
Workers (2011) 8 SCC 574; M C Mehta v Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213; Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union
 The state is required to preserve forests and wildlife as well as protect the
environment under Article 48-A, a directive principle of state policy. Every
citizen is required by Article 51A (g) to have compassion for living things and to
protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and
wildlife. The definition of "citizen" has been expanded under Article 51A (g) to
include interested institutions, public-spirited citizens, and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) who want to promote PILs for environmental protection.
Importantly, the Supreme Court has implemented Articles 48-A, 51A (g), and 21
by citing their judgements and has issued necessary directions in environmental
cases when appropriate. The Supreme Court stated in Intellectual Forum,
Tirupathi v. State of A.P.10,
"The environmental protection and conservation of natural resources has been given
the status of a fundamental right and brought under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India."11
In addition, it is important to keep in mind that Articles 48A and 51A (g) are
fundamental to the country's governance and that it is the state's responsibility to
apply these principles when making laws. These two articles should also be
considered when determining the scope and intent of the fundamental rights
outlined in the Constitution, including Article 21.
In order to grant people who would otherwise be denied access to environmental
justice, the Supreme Court developed new PIL procedures. In Mumbai Kamgar
Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai12, the court made an intentional effort to improve
judicial access by stating that "procedural prescriptions are handmaidens, not
mistresses, of justice and failure of fair play is the spirit in which courts must view
(processual) deviations."13 The easing of the locus standi rule is a significant
procedural innovation. Justice Krishna Iyer, stated: ‘… the truth is that a few
profound issues of processional jurisprudence of great strategic significance to our
legal system face us. We must zero in on them as they involve problems of access to
justice for the people beyond the blinkered rules of ‘standing’ of the British-India
vintage. If the centre of gravity of justice is to shift, as the Preamble of the
Constitution mandate, from the traditional individualism of locus standi to the
community orientation of public interest litigation, these interests must be
considered.’14
The locus standi has undergone two modifications: by representative and citizen
standing. Representative standing enables anyone acting in good faith to file
claims against violations of human rights against victims who were unable to
approach the Court for judicial enforcement of their fundamental rights due to
poverty, disability, or social or economic disadvantage.
By using this method, environmental activists and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) representing the poor and tribal people have entered the

of India AIR 2000 SC 3751; A.P. Pollution Control Board v Prof M.V. Nayudu AIR 1999 SC 812; Vellore
Citizen Welfare Forum v Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715; Virender Gaur v State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC
57; Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420; Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v State of
Uttar Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 2060).
10
(2004) 3 SCC 549.

11
Id. at p. 576.
12
(1976) 3 SCC 832.
13
Id. at p. 837
14
Municipal Council Ratlam v Vardhichand (1980) 4 SCC 162, p. 163.
 courts. For instance, the Bichhri case15 (Indian Council for Environmental Legal
Action v. Union of India) was a grassroots effort by the NGO to address industrial
pollution in rural India and its impact on peasant farmers and the community. The
Supreme Court made the observation in Sterlite Industries v. Union of India 16 that
voluntary organizations should be supported whenever their actions are found to
be in support of the public interest, environmental protection, or against the
powerful and resourceful. The citizen standing provides a platform for public
grievance resolution: Instead of focusing on a single grievance, this has an impact
on society as a whole. The applications for citizen standing in the cases of Urban
and Solid Waste Management17 and The Taj Mahal18, in which public-spirited
citizens sought to hold the state accountable for its inaction or wrongdoing, were
heard.
Through its citizen and representative standing, the proactive Supreme Court of
India has promoted dynamism and capability, enabling victims of environmental
degradation to access justice in a participatory manner. The liberal interpretation
of locus standi has freed petitions for relief from hardships brought by a group or
class action, when fundamental human rights are violated, or when complaints of
such acts have shocked the judicial conscience from traditional procedural
restrictions. The environmental PIL and locus standi introduced a transformative
process that was polycentric, participatory, and democratic in order to meet the
challenges of the time.19 What is relevant for the purposes of locus standi is the
substance of the breach of law or Constitution complained of, not whether the
citizen personally suffered little or no harm.
Although PIL and the relaxed procedures that go along with it have advantages
for ensuring environmental justice, they are not without criticism from outside
sources. Critics claim that the courts are taking on roles previously held by
Parliament and the executive. In India, where the Supreme Court has been
accused of being a hyperactive lawmaking body through a PIL, the widespread
jurisprudential question about the appropriateness of judicial lawmaking is best
illustrated. The judges are violating the doctrine of separation of powers by
trespassing upon the areas that are traditionally and appropriately occupied by the
legislature and the executive. The court has, however, denied any such usurpation
and has issued notices and directives to the central and state governments on a
variety of environmental issues, including the relocation of hazardous industries
from the National Capital Region of Delhi20, the publication of guidelines for the
prevention of noise pollution21, and the conversion of all diesel-powered buses in
Delhi to CNG-driven ones to reduce air pollution 22. It has justified its actions in
its pronouncements either under a statutory provision or as a component of its
inherent powers. Additionally, there is a climate of inconsistency and uncertainty

15
AIR 1996 SC 1446; see also RLEK v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1985 SC 65; T. N. Godavarman
v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1228.
16
(2013) 4 SCC 575.
17
Almitra H Patel v Union of India Writ Petition No 888 of 1996
18
M. C. Mehta v Union of India AIR 1997 SC 734.
19
Bombay Environmental Action Group v State of Maharashtra (1999) 2 Mah LJ 747.
20
M. C. Mehta v Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 18.
21
In re Noise Pollution AIR 2005 SC 3136.
22
M. C. Mehta v Union of India Order dated 28 July 1998
 regarding the acceptance and rejection of environmental PILs. Public-spirited
citizens, who view the court as the last resort for protecting the environment and
citizens' rights, are increasingly concerned about this.
The Court is now open to the possibility of "forum shopping," in which legal
justice is more personality driven than institutionalized. This is because the
"standing rule" has been relaxed. Some of these judges are referred to as "green
judges," "pro poor," or "progressive," while others encourage PIL litigation cases
in their courts in order to garner media attention. These judges promote the
individualism cult, which, in turn, reduces the predictability of the precedent
doctrine. The liberal interpretation of locus standi has been criticized because it
encourages litigation in an already litigious society. Cases are filed within a
system that is already groaning under the weight of its case load. Judgements
should not be based on the individual's whim or the pre-selection of a supportive
judge. What started out as cost-effective and quick litigation has sometimes
become costly and time-consuming. In the Delhi Vehicular Pollution case, for
instance, the initial writ was issued in 1985. Although numerous interim orders
and directions have been issued, the case remains active to this day.23 The PIL
and locus standi have also been exploited through the use of fictitious litigation
that is collusive, profiteering, or speculative. Through this method, manipulative
litigants may attempt to harm competitors or rivals. Recently, there has been a
growing perception that publicity interest litigation has evolved into private
interest litigation, which has a tendency to be counterproductive.
In State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal24 the court observed:
‘… unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction
which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and
caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique
motives. We think the time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest
litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be
discouraged…’25
Despite the environmental PIL's promotion of an expansionist Supreme Court
approach and the implementation of a procedure that allowed poor people and
concerned citizens to access the courts through PIL, the procedure did not prove
to be a "magic bullet." PIL might have little effect in such a restrictive structure.
In fact, during the 2009 debate of the Green Tribunal Bill in Parliament,
documents provided by Shri Jairam Ramesh, the former Minister of State for the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, stated that approximately 5,600
environmental cases were backlogged and awaiting resolution in the High Courts
of India. As with any process, it had its flaws and limitations. Change and
innovation were required. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established to
accomplish this.

3.2 THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

3.2.1 ABOUT

23
M C Mehta v Union of India Writ Petition Civil No. 13029 of 1985.
24
(2010) 3 SCC 402.
25
Id. at pp. 409–410.
 In addition to the issues of delay and back-logging in PIL, the Law Commission
of India's recommendations led to the establishment of the NGT as an exclusive
environmental court. In June of 2010, the National Green Tribunal Act was
approved by the Indian Parliament which allows for the creation of a NGT. Cases
involving the conservation of forests and other natural resources, as well as the
enforcement of any environmental-related legal rights, are decided by the
Tribunal, which also awards relief and compensation for property and person
losses. The NGT was established on October 18, 2010, and New Delhi was
chosen as the Principal Bench location on May 5, 2011. On August 17, 2011, the
Government of India's Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued a
notification establishing regional benches of the NGT in Bhopal, Pune, Chennai,
and Kolkata to cover India's central, western, southern, and eastern regions. In
addition, the NGT adheres to the circuit procedure of "courts going to people and
not people coming to the courts" in order to become more accessible to
individuals, particularly those living in remote areas. Through the establishment
of regional and circuit courts, the result is a reformist strategy that makes
environmental justice accessibility possible. The NGT is a specialized body
whose decision-makers have relevant legal and technical work experience and
qualifications. It is a body with many different aspects and skills. It reshapes the
approach to solving the environmental problem at its source rather than limiting it
to predetermined solutions and produces a coherent and effective institutional
mechanism for uniformly applying complex laws and principles. The content and
development of environmental policies and laws are constantly influenced by the
combination of legal, scientific, and technical expertise. As part of its
commitment to finding solutions to environmental problems, the NGT uses a
variety of methods to serve the greater public interest and significantly expands
the traditional judicial functions of case management and case disposal. These
procedures provide solid foundations for environmental decision-making that
ultimately result in improved outcomes based on a right-based approach. For
instance, adopting a method of investigation that involves expert members to
inspect the affected locations. The objective of the site inspection is to contrast
opposing claims, positions, and reports submitted by the parties. The most recent
of the NGT's problem-solving methods is the stakeholder consultative
adjudicatory process. Stakeholders and the Tribunal's scientific judges can better
represent all parties involved, including the public, scientists, NGOs, and the
government, when major issues that affect public health, the environment, or
ecology are brought together. A greater degree of consent rather than opposition
to a judgment is elicited by stakeholder process.

3.2.2 APPLICATION IN INDIA

With the NGT Act of 2010, the term "standing" was changed to mean an
"aggrieved person" who can go to the Tribunal to get help, money, or a solution
to an environmental dispute. It is essential to note that the term "aggrieved
person" has been given a broad and flexible interpretation in environmental
matters. An aggrieved person has the right to approach the Tribunal under its
 original26 or appellate jurisdiction27. Any aggrieved person and their legal
representatives from any category are also permitted to file an application for
relief, compensation, or a resolution of the dispute under Section 18(2) of the
NGT Act of 2010.
This includes a person who a. has sustained an injury; b. is the owner of the
property to which damage has been caused; c. is the legal representative in the
case of death resulting from environmental damage; d. is a duly authorised agent;
e represents a state agency; or e. is an aggrieved person, including any
representative body or organisation.
The term "person aggrieved" has a broad meaning, and any person who is
affected in any way—directly or indirectly—or even just interested can voice
their displeasure in an application or appeal to address participatory parity.
The NGT, in Jan Chetna v MoEF28 explained the scope and ambit of the term and
stated:
“… the expression aggrieved person cannot be considered in a restricted manner. A
liberal construction and flexible interpretation should be adopted. In environmental
matters, the damage is not necessarily confined to the local area where the industry
is established. The effects of environmental degradation might have far reaching
consequences going beyond the local areas. Therefore, an aggrieved person need
not be a resident of the local area. Any person whether he is a resident of that
particular area or not, whether aggrieved or not, can approach this Tribunal. In such
a situation, it is necessary to review the credentials of the applicants/appellants as to
their true intention or motives.”29

Two factors guided the bench's liberal interpretation: first, the right of any citizen,
regardless of whether he is directly affected by a development project or a
resident of an affected area, to approach the tribunal; second, the inability of
individuals living in the area or vicinity of the proposed project to comprehend
the intrinsic scientific details, as well as the effects of the final project and any
disaster it may cause; and third, Second, the National Green Tribunal Act of
2010's adherence to Article 51A(g), which states that it is the fundamental
responsibility of every citizen to preserve and enhance the natural environment.
So, in a literal sense, anyone can complain to the Tribunal about environmental
threats or damage caused by the State, an organization, or a person with original
or appellate jurisdiction.
For instance, the NGT granted an appeal against the Ministry of Environment and
Forests' grant of environmental clearance for the expansion of a steel and power
plant without providing the aggrieved party with the required public hearing. In
environmental projects, a public hearing is more than just a formality. It is also
meant to make sure that the decision is made after properly weighing the pros and
cons, including the costs and benefits in general, and taking into account locals'
needs and living conditions. A public hearing was deemed necessary by the
Tribunal for environmental issues as well as in accordance with transparent and
accountable governance.

26
Section 14, NGT Act 2010.
27
Section 16, NGT Act 2010.
28
Judgment 9 February 2012.
29
Id. at paras 21 and 22.
 Betty C. Alvares v. State of Goa30 is yet another case that broadens the already
broad definition of an "aggrieved person." The term "person" was interpreted to
include "an individual," whether the person was an Indian national or not.
According to Schedule 1 of the NGT Act of 2010, the Tribunal appears to have
opened its doors to everyone, including incorporated bodies, who consider
themselves "aggrieved" within the political boundaries of India. Betty Alvares, a
resident of India but not a citizen of India, brought up an environmental dispute,
and the proceedings were found to be maintainable. According to the Tribunal, it
is not necessary that a person has personally suffered any loss as a result of
environmental damage caused by illegal construction and encroachment of sea
beaches in violation of coastal zone regulations.
Additionally, all potential aggrieved parties have access to justice thanks to the
initial filing fee of £1079 and the ability to fast track and resolve cases within six
months of application or appeal. On the other hand, when individuals with vested
interests routinely or improperly interfere with the judicial process, the Tribunal
has discouraged litigation. As an "aggrieved party," the Tribunal will not consider
litigious petitioners, and costs will be imposed to discourage such individuals
from filing frivolous applications.
Recent research looks at 1130 cases decided by the National Green Tribunal
between July 2011 and September 2015 to identify the parties to environmental
disputes. NGOs, social activists, and civic-minded individuals are the most
common plaintiffs. They represent 533 (47.2 percent) of the 1130 plaintiffs. In
Vimal Bhai v. Ministry of Environment and Forests31, for instance, the application
of three environmentalists for the grant of an environmental clearance for the
construction of a dam to generate hydroelectric power across the Alakhnanda
River in the Chamoli District of Uttarkhand was approved. The NGT decided that
the three environmentalists were a party who had been wronged and that their
request for a public hearing on the issue of an environmental clearance was valid.
This group has developed into an experienced active body of plaintiffs thanks to
their history of PIL and relaxed locus standi (representative and citizen standing),
resulting in their regular and successful appearance in all NGT benches. The
group's success rate in the cases they brought is 38.3%. The significant number
demonstrates that public-spirited individuals and organizations can use the NGT
as a means of seeking remedies through collective proceedings rather than
engaging in costly multiple lawsuits, thereby affirming participative justice.
With a success rate of 56%, affected individuals, communities, and residents
brought 17.7% of all cases. In R. J. Koli v. State of Maharashtra32, for instance,
the Tribunal granted a personal application by traditional fishermen seeking
compensation for loss of livelihood as a result of infrastructure project activities.
The Tribunal's conscious effort to increase access to environmental justice can be
seen in the case's relatively low costs and the NGT's positive encouragement of
litigants in person. Indigent and illiterate litigants have been encouraged to
express their concerns and personal and community experiences in their native
tongue, particularly at regional courts. Increasing these groups' confidence in the

30
Judgment 14 February 2014.
31
Judgment 14 December 2011.
32
Judgment 27 February 2015.
NGT has motivated and will continue to motivate litigation from within these
groups, which have traditionally had limited or no access to justice. The NGT's
broad and people-centered approach can be seen in this.
Access to the Tribunal for the promotion of various used and meta-individual
rights has been made possible by the locus standi and the expansive interpretation
of "person aggrieved." However, the NGT may face serious delays as a result of a
rapidly increasing workload. Positively, the NGT is aiming for a metamorphosis
of societal environmental interests that encompass what is essential for individual
well-being as well as the larger public interest. The NGT's inclusive participatory
mechanisms are the foundation of its legitimacy.

4. CONCLUSION

The application of a liberal Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the

Constitution in India is reflected in the green jurisprudence that established a
procedure that permitted indigents and concerned citizens to access the courts via
PIL and thereafter through the NGT. In India, Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration
has received a novel interpretation and application. The NGT's decisions to
challenge and hold accountable recalcitrant private and public parties, including
state and para-statal agencies, for their acts of negligence, malfeasance,
misfeasance, indifference, and indolence regarding their statutory and
constitutional responsibilities to protect and maintain India's ecology and
environment have encouraged active, participatory citizenship.
The NGT has made decisions in accordance with its enabling statute, but it has
gone much further through judicial activism by making expansive, novel
decisions based on Article 21 of the Constitution. These decisions have effects
that go beyond the "court room door" and have far-reaching effects on society
and the economy. The NGT's goal of changing public awareness has contributed
to shifting social attitudes toward environmental issues and challenges. In
essence, the primary responsibility for environmental protection and promotion
has been assigned to the Indian judiciary and the NGT.
An explicit national environmental policy has not yet been developed by the
government. Articles 48A and 51A of the 42nd Amendment to the Indian
Constitution serve as the foundation for environmental protection law. In today's
world, both the state and the individual have a fundamental responsibility to
preserve and enhance the natural environment—including forests, lakes, rivers,
and wildlife—as well as to show compassion for all living things. In order to
prevent the supreme law from being reduced to a mere declaration on paper, these
constitutional requirements must animate the rule of law and weave a dynamic
environment policy.