Role of Judiciary in Environment Protection

lawbhoomi.com/role-of-judiciary-in-environment-protection

May 23, 2023

India, with its diverse ecosystems and population, faces numerous environmental
challenges. From air pollution and deforestation to water scarcity and biodiversity loss,
the country’s natural resources are under significant pressure. In this context, the role of
the judiciary becomes paramount in ensuring environmental protection.

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing environmental
laws, adjudicating disputes, safeguarding environmental rights and shaping
environmental governance.

The Supreme Court of India Adopted the Sustainable Development

Principles
The Supreme Court of India has embraced the principles of sustainable development,
recognising the importance of achieving a balance between the environment, society and
economics. This concept, although not new, has gained significance in the twenty-first
century with the emergence of global industrial and information societies. Sustainable
development aims to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs, as stated in the Brundtland Report.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that the United Nations Conference on Human
Environment and the Stockholm Conference in 1972 played a significant role in raising
environmental consciousness and establishing the idea of sustainable development as
part of Customary International Law. It has outlined several principles of sustainable
development, which involve pursuing sustained economic and social progress while
preserving the environment and natural resources necessary for continued development.

The principle of inter-generational equity emphasises that development should meet the
current generation’s needs without depleting nonrenewable resources and depriving
future generations of their benefits. The Supreme Court, in the case of Bombay Dyeing
& Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group, supported this approach,
ensuring that present generations do not exploit resources to the detriment of future
generations.

The Precautionary Principle states that states should adopt a precautionary approach to
environmental conservation, even in the absence of full scientific certainty, to prevent
irreversible damage. The Indian Supreme Court has embraced this principle,
incorporating it into the burden of proof in environmental matters. Those seeking to
change the status quo bear the burden of proof in demonstrating the absence of
detrimental effects of proposed actions.
Additionally, the court supports the principle that polluters should bear the costs of
pollution, taking into account the public interest and without distorting international trade
and investment. This principle promotes the internationalisation of environmental costs
and the use of economic instruments to hold polluters accountable not only for
compensating victims but also for rehabilitating the ecosystem.

The Supreme Court of India‘s recognition and application of these principles

demonstrates its commitment to sustainable development and environmental protection.
By incorporating these principles into its decisions, the court encourages responsible
behaviour, accountability and a balance between economic development and
environmental preservation.

Evolution of Environmental Law Doctrines by Judiciary

The Doctrine of Absolute Liability

In the landmark case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, the Supreme
Court of India established the doctrine of absolute liability. The court held that when an
enterprise engages in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities, it is strictly and
absolutely liable for any harm caused as a result of accidents in such operations.

This liability applies without any exemptions, meaning the enterprise must compensate all
those affected by the accident. The judgment set a new precedent, introducing the
concept of absolute liability in environmental cases.

Polluter Pays Principle

The polluter pays principle has gained significant recognition in recent years. The
underlying principle is that if a person or entity pollutes the environment, they are
responsible for bearing the costs associated with the pollution and its cleanup.

This principle is not based on assigning fault, but rather on the idea that those who cause
harm to the environment should be accountable for rectifying the damage. It aligns with
the goal of remedying environmental harm. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of
Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India, affirmed the polluter pays principle
as an integral part of sustainable development.

Precautionary Principle

The Supreme Court of India, in the Vellore Citizens Forum case, outlined three key
aspects of the precautionary principle. First, environmental measures should aim to
anticipate, prevent and address the causes of environmental degradation. Second, a lack
of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone necessary measures.
Finally, the burden of proof lies with the party undertaking an action to demonstrate its
benign nature. These principles guide decision-making in situations where potential harm
to the environment exists.

Public Trust Doctrine

The Public Trust Doctrine is based on the principle that certain resources, such as air,
water, sea and forests, are of significant importance to society as a whole and should not
be subject to private ownership.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others, the Supreme Court held that the
Public Trust Doctrine is an inherent part of the law of the land. This doctrine ensures that
these resources are protected and managed in the best interests of the public.

Doctrine of Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainable development was highlighted by the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED) in its report, commonly known as the Brundtland
Report. Sustainable development refers to development that meets the present needs
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The
courts play a vital role in striking a balance between development and environmental
protection.

In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP, the court
emphasised that natural resources are permanent assets of humankind and should not
be depleted within one generation. The Supreme Court, in the Vellore Citizen’s Welfare
Forum case, recognised sustainable development as a viable concept for eradicating
poverty and improving human life while staying within the ecological carrying capacity.

Environmental Rights Recognised by Judiciary

The active role of the judiciary in environmental protection is evident in several key
judgments, which are summarised below:

(A) The Right To A Wholesome Environment

In the Charan Lal Sahu case, the Supreme Court recognised that the right to life
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a wholesome
environment.

In the Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corporation Hyderabad case, the court relied on
Constitutional mandates under Articles 48A and 51A(g) to assert that environmental
pollution would violate the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined in
Article 21.
(B) Public Nuisance: The Judicial Response

In the Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand case, the Supreme Court’s judgment
emphasised the social justice component of the rule of law. It held statutory authorities
liable to fulfil their obligations in abating public nuisance and making the environment
pollution-free, even if there are budgetary constraints. This case also recognised Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) as a constitutional obligation of the courts.

(C) Judicial Relief Encompasses Compensation To Victims

In the Delhi gas leak case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), the Supreme Court
established two important principles of law. Firstly, it confirmed the power of the court to
grant remedial relief, including compensation, for proven infringements of fundamental
rights such as Article 21. Secondly, it introduced the concept of “no fault” liability (absolute
liability) for industries engaged in hazardous activities, which significantly impacted
liability and compensation laws in India.

(D) Fundamental Right To Water

The fundamental right to water in India has evolved through judicial interpretation. In the
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. case, the Supreme Court upheld
that water is a basic need for human survival and an implicit part of the right to life,
human rights, the right to a healthy environment and sustainable development as
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the judiciary plays a crucial role in environmental protection in India.
Through its proactive approach and innovative use of legal principles, the judiciary has
emerged as a powerful force in ensuring sustainable development and safeguarding the
environment for present and future generations.

One of the key contributions of the judiciary is the recognition of the right to a healthy
environment as a fundamental right. Through landmark judgments, the courts have
established the link between environmental quality and the right to life, emphasising the
importance of clean air, water and soil for the overall well-being of individuals.

The judiciary has also introduced groundbreaking concepts such as absolute liability,
which holds industries accountable for disasters arising from hazardous activities. This
principle ensures that enterprises take necessary precautions to prevent harm to the
environment and public health, regardless of negligence. Moreover, the courts have
emphasised the principles of sustainable development, including the precautionary
principle and the polluter pays principle, as integral components of environmental law.
Public interest litigation has been a powerful tool utilised by the judiciary to address
environmental issues. By enabling citizens and organisations to seek legal remedies on
behalf of the larger public, the courts have played a significant role in holding authorities
and polluting industries accountable for their actions. This has resulted in enforcing
environmental regulations and imposing fines and compensations for environmental
degradation.