HNLU- CIA 2
LEGAL METHOD
A CASE ANALYSIS
Submitted to
Dr. Rajput Shraddha Bhausingh
Assistant Professor– LEGAL METHOD
Submitted by
SIDH BAUNTHIYAL
ROLL NO.-12, SECTION-C, SEMESTER-1
Submitted on- 9th Oct,2023
INTRODUCTION
In this assignment, I will be critically analyzing the Landmark PIL case,
“RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA (RLEK) vs.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1.”
I will further discuss the significance of the case, its importance in the legal
context, and what legal method concepts can be applied to it.
I shall conclude the assignment by talking about how the case has impacted
society, and its future implications in related judgements.
SELECTION OF CASE
1
“Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1985) 2 SCC 431 : AIR 1985 SC
652.”
This case law has been selected for its importance as the first PIL case dealing
with environmental issues. The case brought forth the need to answer
questions regarding the environment such as: -
How to maintain a balance between the development of industries for
economic growth and the conservation of the environment?
Does the carrying out of mining operations in forests regulated by the
government, result in violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980?
Whether mining activities are justified as they were being carried out
under the Mines Act, of 1952, and done so to preserve the economic
integrity of the country?
Should the power to decide matters regarding forest disputes be under
the jurisdiction of the state administration or the central government?
This case set the precedent for future PILs in dealing with environmental
issues. It highlights frequent environmental concerns such as sustainable
development, resource conservation and pollution control.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Case Happening: 1985
Petitioner: Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra
Defendant: State of Uttar Pradesh
Court Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of India
Presiding Jury: “Justice P.N. Bhagwati
Justice Amerendra Nath
Justice Rangnath Mishra”
Applied Law: “Constitution of India, Article 32 and 48A”; “The Forest
Conservation Act, 1980”; “The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 1988”;
“The Mines Act, 1952”
Truth of the Matter
The Mussoorie hills part of the Himalayas had an area called the Doon Valley.
Various rivers had their origin in the hills, making it an ecologically
prosperous area. However, it put aside a part of the valley for carrying out the
mining of limestone. This resulted in the condition of the valley deteriorating
as an effect of hasty development, mass deforestation, and excessive mining
that was being carried out from 1950-1960s.
The Minister of Mining for Uttar Pradesh had put a ban on mining industries
due to the excessive mining, effective from 1961. Following this event, in
1962, the state government nullified the ban by selling numerous mining and
excavation leases for 20 years, resulting in the return of dreaded mining. When
leases were near their expiration in 1982, the state, following the pleas of the
people denied the restoration of the leases on the grounds of ecological
destruction.
Mining industries continued operations despite the orders given by the
government. This defiance was unfortunately given backing by the Allahabad
High Court when they gave their go-ahead to the unearthing activities, valuing
economic benefits over environmental prosperity.
On further continuation of these activities, RLEK, an NGO in Dehradun,
approached the SC with a complaint letter regarding the same. The SC then
appointed the Bhargav committee in 1983, whose task was to assess the
Limestone quarries and mining.
The Bhargav committee after observation classified the mines into 3 Groups-
1. Where the impact on ecology was relatively less pronounced.
2. Where the impact on ecology was relatively more pronounced.
3. Those quarries which were to be closed down due to lack of safety and
hazards which maybe more serious in nature.
A working group was also initiated by the Central Government, which had a
shared member with the Bhargav committee, with both of them having Sh.
D.N. Bhargav. Its job was to determine the continuance or discontinuance of
the Limestone quarries were to occur.
JUDGEMENT
After the judicial process of 5 years, the final judgement came out. On 30th
August 1988, the Supreme court decided in opposition of the limestone miners
and industrialists.
The order to carry out the shutdown of 101 mines in the valley was given, and
any lease permitting them to continue mining will stand dissolved.
Further Analysis of the Judgement
The mines that were in the category 1 classification of the Bhargav committee
and outside the area of Mussoorie were allowed to continue to function so
long as they followed the proviso under the Mines Act 1952. This did not
mean that the leases that have their renewal pending in court would
automatically get renewed.
As for the mines under the category 2 classification, the SC appointed a high-
powered committee called Bandyopadhyay committee. This body was to
analyze reports sent by different Limestone quarries about their schemes for
further mining, which the committee would assess and send their opinion
forwards to the Supreme court about whether the concerned quarry should be
allowed to continue to function in the future.
CRTICAL ANALYSIS
The confrontation between RLEK vs. State of UP is a well-established case
law that demonstrates how PILs can be tools of justice for securing the interest
of the public. In this case, the principles of transparency and accountability by
the government are to be given importance as it holds the officials holding
positions of power accountable for their environmental actions or their
inability to take actions for betterment of the environment.
The judicial decision made by the SC was done while keeping in mind both
sides of the coin. On one hand, it was important for the economy of India that
mining activities were carried out as it promotes growth of industries and
foreign exchange. On the other hand, it is crucial that we preserve out natural
resources by appliying the principle of Sustainable development.
The SC in this case was thorough with their appointment of various
committees to have a holistic view of the issue at hand. Through these devices,
the SC managed to attain a delicate balance between Economy anf Ecology.
Application in Legal Method
The case itself shows many applications of specific concepts of Legal Method
such as: -
It is assuring to see that SC upheld the principles of Justice, Equity and
good concsience by ensuring that the workers who got their jobs taken
away by the decision were taken care of, by providing them work.
The SC did this by assigning the workers under the already existing
Eco-Task force for the retoration of trees and landscape.
The Supreme Court also ensured equity for the Lease owners by giving
them priority for the grant of lease if a new area for limestone mining
opens up in UP.
The use of process of legislation encopassing all its steps – Making of
the law, and applying it to the relevant subject matter was done. In this
case making of The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the purpose of
preserving the natural resources that the forest posseses.
But we can see through the actions of the Limestone Miners and how
they were exploiting the resources of the forest that the judiciary
needed to bring a broader approach to the Forest Conservation act.
This was done through the Forest (Conservatiom) Ammendment Act,
1988 that stated that the owner of the land may not use the land for
purposes like culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary
marks, pipe- lines or other like purposes.2
This shows the dynamic nature of law, that claw changes with time,
place, object, circumstances.
2
India. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 1988 (No. 69 of 1988), 17 December
1988. Annu Rev Popular Law. 1988;15:236. PMID: 12289482.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this case encompases a variety of concepts and principles
that we can learn from. It’s the first case of its kind trailblazing the path
forward for PILs dealing with environmental issues. It deals with the
delicate balannce that exixsts between Economic anf Ecoligical Balance.
It also demonstrates us the adeptness of the Suprme court in passing a just
judgement and following through after it, so no party gets taken advantage
of.
It is a case that shows how how judiciary plays an important role is
shaping, interpreting and enforcing environmental laws.
“The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice
something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be
heard.”3 -Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day
3
OA US EPA, Quotations about the Environment, (2015),
[Link]
