LAWS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION IN INDIA

At the national level, some remarkable efforts have been made to improve and protect the
environment by incorporating Amendments into the Indian Constitution. Our Constitution initially did
not directly provide for the protection of the natural environment. However, following the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, the Indian Constitution was
amended to include environmental protection as a constitutional mandate. The 42nd Amendment
clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India states that protecting and improving the natural
environment is a fundamental duty. Every citizen of India has a duty to protect and improve the
natural environment, including lakes, forests, wildlife, and rivers, and to be sympathetic to living
things. A policy or directive is empowering the state as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy
sets out to protect and improve the environment.

Article 48A stipulates: The state strives to protect and improve the environment and secure the
country’s forests and wild animals. The Ministry of Environment was established in India in 1980 to
ensure a healthy environment in the country. Later, this became the Ministry of Environment and
Forests in 1985. The Ministry has overall responsibility for the management and enforcement of
environmental legislation and policies. Constitutional provisions are backed by a series of laws – Acts
and Rules. Most of our environmental laws are Acts of Parliament or State Legislatures. These Acts
generally give regulators the power to make regulations to enforce them. The Environmental
Protection Act (EPA) of 1986 came into effect shortly after the Bhopal Gas tragedy and is considered
protective legislation because it filled many gaps in existing legislation.

Since then, a significant number of environmental law has been enacted to deal with specific
environmental issues. In Delhi, for example, CNG was recently mandated for public transport vehicles.
This reduces air pollution in Delhi.

Environment laws in India

There are so many environmental laws in force in India, and some are as follows: –

The Public Liability Insurance Act and Rules 1991 and Amendment, 1992

The Public Liability Insurance Act and Rules, 1991 and Amendment, 1992 were introduced to provide
public liability insurance to persons in accidents impacted unintentionally while taking care of any
perilous substance.

The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, Amendment, 2010

The Act seeks to provide compensation for damages to persons, property damage, and environmental
damages caused by activities involving hazardous substances. The three main goals are:

 Efficiently and expeditiously handle cases related to environmental protection and protection of
forests and other natural resources. All previously pending cases are also being heard by the
Tribunal.
 It aims to enforce all legal rights related to the environment.
 It also accounts for providing compensation and relief to the people who are affected by the
damage.
The salient features of the Amendment are as follows:

 The Amendment provides every citizen of India the same opportunity to apply to the National
Green Court.
 Ensure that the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the polluter
pays principle, and intergenerational equity are taken into account by courts in hearing
appeals and delivering judgments.
The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997

The National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was created to hear appeals related to
restrictions of areas in which classes of industry, etc., are prescribed certain safeguards under the
Environmental Protection Act.

The Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998

Biomedical waste refers to any waste, including the categories listed in the Rules, generated during the
diagnosis, treatment, or immunisation of humans or animals, related research activities, or the
production or testing of biological waste. The Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,
1998 simplify the process of handling hospital waste, such as a disposal, collection, and sorting.

The Environment (Siting for Industrial Projects) Rules, 1999

The Environment (Siting for Industrial Projects) Rules, 1999 set out detailed provisions on the areas to
be avoided for the establishment of industrial plants, the precautions to be taken in site selection, and
the environmental protection aspects to be considered while implementing industrial development
projects.

The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000

These Rules apply to each municipal authority. They must ensure that solid waste generated by the
city/municipality is handled in accordance with rules and regulations for collection, separation, storage,
transportation, processing, and disposal.

The Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001

The Central Government considers battery waste management more important than battery
production, so the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has notified the final rule regulating the
collection and recycling of all used lead-acid batteries in India, called The Batteries (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2001, on 16 May 2001. The Act applies to battery management under the
Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and extends throughout India. As the issue of battery waste
disposal has become a global issue, it is only the right step for India to prevent it from damaging our
air, water, or soil.

The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules, 2010

These rules stipulate the necessary conditions to reduce noise pollution and allow the use of
loudspeakers or public address systems during cultural or religious celebrations at night (between
10:00 p.m. and midnight).

Here are the key features of the Amendment:

 Loudspeakers, sound systems, or amplifiers should not be used at night except in enclosed
spaces such as auditoriums, meeting rooms, community halls, banquet halls, etc., or during
public emergencies.
 Noise levels at public spaces where loudspeakers or public address systems are being used
should not exceed 10 dB or 75 dB of the area’s ambient noise standard, whichever is less.
 No horn should be used in the residential area except during an emergency.
 Sound emitting construction equipment will not be used at night.

The Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1981

The Act aims to control and prevent air pollution in India, and some of its main objectives are:
  Prevent, control, and reduce air pollution.
 To provide for the establishment of boards to enforce the law at the federal and state levels.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) were given
the responsibility.
It is stipulated that air pollution sources such as internal combustion engines, industries, vehicles, and
power plants shall not contain particulate matter, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or other toxic substances exceeding specified limits. It
empowers state governments to designate air pollution areas.

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006 (FRA)

The Act recognizes and grants the forest rights and occupation in forest lands to Forest Dwelling
Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) who have lived in such
forests for generations. The Act is chaired by the Department of Tribal Affairs. The law also stipulates
the responsibilities and powers for the sustainable use of FDST and OTFD, the protection of
biodiversity, and the maintenance of ecological balance. It strengthens forest protection systems while
ensuring livelihoods and food security for FDST and OTFD. It aims to correct the colonial injustice of
the FDST and OTFD, which are critical to the survival and sustainability of forest ecosystems. The law
identifies four types of rights:

 Title rights: It gives the FDST and OTFD the right to own land cultivated by tribes or forest
dwellers up to a maximum area of 4 hectares. Ownership only applies to the land cultivated
by the relevant family and does not grant new land.
 Right to use: Dweller rights extend to the extraction of smaller forest products, pastures,
pasture paths, etc.
 Forest management rights: It includes the right to protect, regenerate, conserve or manage all
community forest resources that traditionally protect them and preserve them for sustainable
use.
 Relief and development rights: Rehabilitation in case of illegal eviction or relocation and
essential amenities are subject to restrictions for forest protection.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Forests are an essential resource endowed by nature to human beings. Therefore, protecting the forest
ecosystem is the responsibility of every citizen. But rapid deforestation disrupts the cycle of nature
itself. Therefore, it is necessary to enact laws to protect forests. The main objective of the Act is to
protect forests and their flora, fauna, and other diverse ecological components while preserving the
integrity and territory of the forests. Furthermore, forest land is prevented from being converted for
agricultural, grazing, or other commercial uses and intentions.

The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

The Act protects the nation’s wildlife, bird and plant species to ensure environmental safety. Among
other things, the law imposes restrictions on hunting many animal species. The law was last amended
in 2006. An Amendment was submitted to the Rajya Sabha in 2013 and referred to the Standing
Committee but was withdrawn in 2015.

In India, the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 safeguards and protects wild animals. The law is a product
of a time when environmental jurisprudence is rapidly developing in India and deserves due credit for
judicial activism. The enactment of this law acknowledges that all previous laws, such as the Wild Birds
and Animals Protection Act of 1912 were inadequate. The current law is comprehensive and covers
mostly all the gaps that existed in the previous law.
However, there are still substantial gaps in the applicable law. There is a vacuum between theoretical
laws and practical implementation. In addition, the aim of the law is diluted by bureaucratic
interference.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was enacted to prevent and control water
pollution and maintain or restore water health in the country. The law was amended in 1988. The
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act was enacted in 1977 to provide for the levy of
taxes on water used by persons engaged in certain types of industrial activities. Under the Act, it was
levied to augment the resources of the Central and State Commissions to prevent and control water
pollution. The law was last amended in 2003.

The purpose of enacting the Water Act is to prevent and control water pollution in India. Pollution
means the contamination of water, or the alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties
of water, or the discharge of sewage or commercial sewage or other liquids, gases, and solids
(whether directly or indirectly) into the water, or as apposite to cause a nuisance or harmful to public
health or safety or domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other lawful uses or the life and
health of an animal or plant or aquatic tissue.

Water pollution is a big problem in India, and its control and prevention are other big problems. So far,
we have not been able to raise awareness of the importance of water conservation. The law, of course,
provides for various authorities that will work to prevent this; the law provides various complaints
procedures and the powers of various agencies. However, more work needs to be done to make the
law more comprehensive, involve more local people, and make it a strong deterrent with heavier
penalties. Most importantly, more emphasis should be placed on the enforcement aspect, as pollution
can not only be controlled through legislation but also must be adequately enforced.

The Ozone-Depleting Substances (Regulation And Control) Rules, 2000

The Ozone-Depleting Substances (Regulation And Control) Rules, 2000 sets deadlines for phasing out
various ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and regulating the production, commercial import, and
export of products containing ODS. These regulations prohibit the use of ODS and Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform, except for metered-dose inhalers and
other medical uses.

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2018

It was notified on the recommendation of the Shailesh Nayak Committee. This regulation promotes
sustainable development and also focuses on natural disasters such as sea-level rise due to global
warming and promotes sustainable development. It also protects and preserves biodiversity while
ensuring the livelihoods of local communities, including fishermen.

Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) is divided into four regulatory zones:

 CRZ I – Ecologically sensitive areas such as mangroves, salt marshes, coral reefs, turtle nesting
sites, and inter-tidal zones.
 CRZ II- Areas close to the shoreline and which have evolved.
 CRZ III- Coastal which are not substantially built up, comprising rural coastal areas.
 CRZ IV- Water area via Low Tide Line to the limit of provincial waters of India.

The Energy Conservation Act, 2001

The Energy Conservation Act, 2001 was ratified as a step toward revamping energy efficiency and
reducing waste. It deals with energy consumption standards for equipment and appliances.
Furthermore, it deals explicitly with the matter of energy consumption norms and other necessary
standards for consumers. The growing population of India and the consequent increase in energy
consumption have led to the depletion of natural resources, which once disappeared cannot be reborn
in the same state. To challenge this reality, the Indian Government in 2001 considered enacting the
Energy Conservation Act to regulate energy consumption and conservation in India. The law authorizes
the Central Government to issue energy-saving certificates to consumers whose energy consumption is
lower than the prescribed norms and standards. Consumers whose energy consumption exceeds the
prescribed norms and standards shall be entitled to purchase the energy savings certificate to meet
the prescribed norms and standards. The Act requires large energy consumers to comply with energy
consumption standards, new buildings to comply with Energy Conservation Building Code, and
equipment to meet energy performance standards and display energy consumption labels.

It suggests energy conservation building codes for commercial buildings. The Bureau of Energy
Efficiency (BEE) is a statutory body set up under the Act.

The Government of India established the Bureau of Energy Efficiency on 1st March 2002, in accordance
with the provisions of the 2001 Energy Conservation Law. The mandate of the Office of Energy
Efficiency is to assist in the development of policies and strategies, focusing on self-regulation and
market principles within the general framework of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001, with the
primary objective of reducing the energy intensity of the Indian economy.

The mission of BEE is to develop policies and strategies emphasising self-regulation and market
principles within the general framework of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001, with the primary
purpose of promoting energy-saving measures, thereby reducing the unit energy intensity (i.e., energy
consumption) of products in the Indian economy/ services, practices and procedures).

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was enacted to give effect to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), to check biopiracy and protect biological diversity and local growers with the help of a three-
tier structure made by central and state boards and local committees, and to set up State Biodiversity
Boards (SBBS), Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCS), and National Biodiversity Authority
(NBA).

The Act is generally designed to protect biodiversity, to protect and control the appropriate use of its
components, and to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of such use. The stated goals of the
law are to protect traditional knowledge, prevent biopiracy, prohibit people from applying for patents
without government permission, and more. Chapter IX of this Act describes various aspects of
biodiversity conservation objectives, in particular Sections 36, 37 and 38 which relate to the
development of national plans and programmes for the conservation of biodiversity, state notification
and conservation of biological diversity areas, and with the authority of the central government to
notify species that are dangerously endangered, on the verge of extinction, endangered species,
prohibit collection, etc. While the sustainable use of its components suggests regulation of the use of
natural resources rather than consumption.

Article 21 of the Act provides for benefit sharing. It aims to ensure that the benefits derived from the
available biological resources, their by-products, knowledge and related practices are equitably shared
between the person applying for acquiring such benefits and the local bodies involved.

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was established to provide judicial and administrative remedies
for victims of pollution and other environmental damage. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was
established in 2010, which is a specialised judicial body with expertise dedicated to adjudicating
environmental cases in the country. Given that most environmental cases involve multidisciplinary
issues and are best dealt with in dedicated forums, the Tribunal was established on the advice of the
Supreme Court, Law Commission and India’s international law obligations to formulate and effectively
implement national environmental laws. The task of the Tribunal is to find effective and prompt
remedies in cases relating to environmental protection, the protection of forests and other natural
resources, and the enforcement of all environmental legal claims. The Tribunal’s order is binding and
has the power to provide relief to those affected in the form of compensation and damages.

It also agrees with Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the right of citizens to a healthy
environment. The National Green Tribunal must resolve cases brought to it within six months of its
appointment. NGT is primarily responsible for matters related to major environmental issues.

But advantageously, because of the National Green Tribunals, which encourages lawyers to specialize
in environmental law, the Tribunal is seen as an important aspect of achieving justice in environmental
matters. A time will come when our environment will receive the greatest attention from the laws
pertaining to it.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

The Act provides for the protection of wild animals, plants, and birds. It straddles the whole of India. It
has six schedules that give different levels of protection:

Schedule I and part II provide absolute protection, and offences under these will be subject to the
highest penalties. Species listed in Schedule III and IV are also protected but with much lower
penalties.

Animals that come under Schedule V, such as common crows, fruit bats, mice, and rats, are legally
considered pests and can be hunted freely.

The endemic plants listed in Schedule VI shall not be cultivated.

The Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021

The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The Bill aims to increase the number of species protected
under the law and implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Some of the key areas the Bill focuses on:-

 Standing Committees of State Boards of Wildlife: This Bill proposes the creation of a Standing
Committees of State Boards of Wildlife. These Committees will operate like the National Board
for Wildlife (NBWL). It can make decisions about wildlife management and project licensing
without having to refer most projects to NBWL.
 Rationalisation of Schedules for Wildlife: The Bill simplifies Schedules for Wildlife under the Act,
bringing it down from 6 to 4 major Schedules.
 Wildlife Management Plans: The Bill states that the Wildlife Management Plans, which are
prepared for national parks across the country, are now part of the Wildlife Act. The Chief
Wildlife Warden must also approve them of the state. This ensures stricter protection of these
protected areas. Previously, the plans were approved by executive order.

Landmark cases on environment legislation in India

J.C. Galstaun v. Dunia Lal Seal (1905)

This is the first environmental pollution incident reported in India. In this case, the plaintiff sued the
defendant’s adjacent factory for discharging waste liquid from its manufacturing process into a
municipal drain that passed through the plaintiff’s garden. He claimed that the liquid had an
unpleasant smell and was harmful to the health of nearby residents, especially his own, and secondly,
it damaged his health, comfort, and the market value of his garden property. The defendant admitted
to foul-smelling his liquid waste but denied that it was harmful or would damage the plaintiff’s
property. He said his factory was licensed by the government and produced legally. The judgment was
later appealed to the Calcutta High Court.

The High Court rejected the above argument and came to the conclusion that the defendant is
accountable for such harm and had no such right to discharge any kind of liquid into the municipal
drain. Due to such actions, the damage has actually been caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, he is
entitled to substantial damages.

Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1985)

In this case, the plaintiff NGO wrote a letter to the SC stating that illegal limestone mining in the
Mussoorie-Dehradun area is destroying the region’s fragile ecosystem. The Court treated the letter as
a writ petition and heard the parties.

The Court issued a detailed Order giving various directions, noting that the reasons for the order would
be set out in subsequent judgments. The Court stressed that industrial development is a necessary
condition for the country’s economic growth. However, when people try to achieve industrial growth
through random and reckless mine operations, resulting in loss of property, loss of life, loss of basic
infrastructure such as water supply, and the creation of ecological imbalances, there may ultimately be
no real economic growth and no real prosperity. It was important to find an appropriate balance. When
giving leases, authorities must consider all these facts and provide adequate safeguards.

M.C. Mehta & Another vs. Union of India & Others & Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries &
Another v. Union of India & Others (1987)

M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution. He demanded the closure
of Shriram Food and Fertilizer as it manufactures hazardous substances and is located in the densely
populated area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was pending, there was a leakage of oleum gas from
one of its units, which killed many people, thus, affecting the health of several others. The incident
occurred a few months before the Environment (Protection) Act came into force and became the
driving force behind such an effective law.

In the Judgment, Chief Justice Bhagwati mentioned that all these chemical industries are dangerous,
but they cannot be removed from the country because they improve the quality of life. As dangerous
as these industries are, they need to be set up as they provide many supplies, as in this case the
factories supply chlorine gas to the Delhi Water Company to maintain clean drinking water. These
industries are important for the country’s economic growth. The case is a landmark verdict as it is the
first time in Indian history that a company is liable for damages. The Supreme Court defended the
environment and public rights in this case because it considered ll legal and social and economic
factors.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997)

The Taj Mahal case, commonly known as the Taj Trapezium case, was fought by M.C. Mehta and the
Union of India. In 1984, Mehta visited the Taj Mahal and noticed that the white marble of the Taj
Mahal was turning yellow. To find out, he filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The petitioner stated
that pollution is the main cause of the Taj Mahal’s white marble turning yellow. Emissions of harmful
gases such as sulfur dioxide and oxygen become acid rain. The rain damaged the monument and
turned the marble yellow. Therefore, the petitioner requested the protection of the monument. The
Supreme Court found that, in addition to chemicals, socioeconomic factors also affected the mining of
the Taj Mahal. People living in trapeze zones are at risk of air pollution. Court ordered that 292
industries operate on safer fuels like propane instead of coke/coal; otherwise, they would have to
relocate.

The Gas Authority of India Limited was in charge of applications of gas. The Court also granted certain
fundamental rights to industry workers and demanded payment of their wages during relocation.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988)

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988), a writ petition had been filed in the Supreme Court
to prevent leather tanneries from dumping household and industrial waste in the river Ganga. He
asked the court to stop sewage discharge into the river until a certain treatment plan has been
incorporated to curb water pollution.

The Court held that polluted water can cause various water-borne diseases and is extremely harmful to
the public. As for whose responsibility, the Court ruled that it was the industry’s responsibility to
ensure the waste was properly handled and subsequently released. Mahapalika was also held
accountable for failing to perform its duties and for failing to act to prevent water pollution, according
to the Court. It ordered Mahapalika to take immediate action in this regard.

The Court also ordered the federal government to make publications freely available to the general
public to raise awareness of environmental issues. It went on to say that the decision will apply to all
Mahaparikas who have jurisdiction over the Ganga.

The decision is still considered one of the most important in our country’s environmental law. The
decision involves some new scenarios and interpretations of legislation and fundamental rights.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), petitioners had filed a public interest lawsuit
against two steel companies, alleging that they dumped plant waste into the nearby Bokaro River,
posing a health risk to the public. The petitioner also claimed that the State Environmental Protection
Agency did not take appropriate measures to prevent such pollution. As part of their lawsuit, they
asked the Court to bring legal action against the company under the Water (Pollution Prevention and
Control) Act 1974 and sought permission to self-assess waste in the form of sludge and manure
collected as interim relief. The State Pollution and Control Board claimed that it adequately monitored
the quality of sewage entering the river; the defendant companies claimed they followed the Board’s
instructions concerning the prevention of pollution.

The Court found that the Board had taken effective steps to prevent the waste discharge from the
factories into the river and dismissed the lawsuit. In addition, it has been determined that the petition
does not qualify as a public interest lawsuit because of the petitioner’s interest in obtaining larger
quantities of waste in the form of slurry from one of the defendant companies from which he began to
purchase slurry several years prior to the petition.

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1996)

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1996), the issue started when the Indian Express
published an article reporting that a private company- Span Motels Private Ltd., had launched a project
called Span Club. The article caught the attention of the Supreme Court. The company owner had
direct contact with the family of former Minister of Environment and Forests, Kamal Nath. By the time
Kamal Nath was a minister in 1994, Span Motels had occupied 27.12 acres of land, including forest
land. The motel used bulldozers to change the course of the river Beas and divert the river’s flow. The
river was diverted to protect the motel from future flooding. The question raised was whether the
construction activities carried out by the motel company were reasonable.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s forest lands leased to the motel were on the banks
of river Beas. The area is ecologically fragile and should not be turned into private property. This case
applies the principle of public trust, which stipulates that the public cannot use rivers, coasts, forests,
air, and other properties. The motel was ordered to pay damages and erect a wall no more than 4
metres apart. The Court also banned the motel from discharging untreated effluent into the river and
asked the HP Pollution Commission to keep a check on it.
Samir Mehta v. Union of India (2017)

In the case of Samir Mehta v. Union of India (2017), an environmentalist filed a claim for damages
from the sinking of a ship named M.V. Rak, carrying large quantities of coal, fuel oil, and diesel. When
the ship sank on Mumbai’s southern coast, a thick layer of oil formed on the sea surface, causing
major damage to mangroves and marine ecosystems.

The Court ruled that the sinking of the ship was due to the negligence of the defendants and ordered
defendants number 5, 7, and 11 to pay Rs 100 crores to the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India
(GOI), which is till now one of the largest sums paid by a private entity for environmental damage
caused.