The Role of India’s Judiciary in promoting Environmental Preservation

Author: Areesha Aafreen, Integral University Lucknow.

This article looks at how important the Indian court is in advancing environmental conservation. A major influence in the development of environmental jurisprudence, the court has come to acknowledge the environmental catastrophe and the shortcomings of legislative and executive activities. Important concepts like the polluter-pays principle, the precautionary principle, the public trust doctrine, and unlimited responsibility have all been established by landmark rulings. The court has continuously maintained that the right to a healthy environment is a necessary component of the basic right to life. The court has successfully handled environmental issues through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), guaranteeing the accountability of authorities and offering redress to impacted parties. Judicial involvement in environmental issues has been reinforced by the acceptance of sustainable development as a guiding concept. The Indian court has been instrumental in protecting the environment and guaranteeing a sustainable future for the country by aggressively addressing environmental challenges and interpreting current legislation in light of sustainable development concepts.

Indian Judiciary, Environment, Sustainable Development, Pollution, Liability 

As civilization advanced, man became increasingly focused on material possessions. His main goal in life was to accumulate more and more material riches. This ignited progress in science and technology, opening opportunities for the exploitation of natural resources. The rapid and unregulated industrialization has made the deterioration of the environment a potential danger. The Second World War and industrial disaster led to significant pollution and harm to the earth’s ecology on a large scale. People started to understand that if this continued, the very existence of humans would be endangered.

India has been dealing with environmental contamination for a long time. Consequently, the framers had already included Articles 47, 48, and 48A in the Constitution. The government has been given a specific set of duties outlined in these articles to safeguard the environment and preserve the nation’s natural resources. Article 51(1)(g) was inserted into the constitution by the Parliament as India had signed the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. According to this article, it is up to each person to care for and enhance the natural environment, which includes forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, as well as to show kindness towards living beings. In addition to that, the Parliament approved multiple laws aimed at reducing pollution, including the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986, The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1981, The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Act 1972, The Biological Diversity Act 2002, etc. To safeguard the environment.

The Indian Supreme Court is highly esteemed; overall, the public holds a more favorable opinion of the Indian Supreme Court than the state’s legislative and executive branches. The Supreme Court has effectively managed a complicated, diverse, and quickly evolving realm of technology and various disciplines. The participation of the judiciary has led to many advancements and has supplied the essential foundation for the establishment of a thorough Indian environmental legislation. In the realm of environmental justice management, the Supreme Court of India has been the most prominent not just compared to the legislative and executive branches, but also in comparison to courts in both developed and developing nations, regardless of age.

The Indian Constitution guarantees that the judiciary remains independent from the legislative and executive branches, reducing its susceptibility to pressure from either branch.

1. The doctrine of absolute liability: 

The theory of unlimited responsibility was established by India’s Supreme Court in the landmark case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India. According to the court, a business that engages in activities that are inherently dangerous or risky has full responsibility for any harm brought on by mishaps involving such activities. 

There are no exceptions to the company’s obligation to compensate everyone affected by the disaster. The decision set a new precedent by introducing the concept of infinite liability in environmental challenges. 

2. Principle of Polluter Pays:

In recent years, the polluter pays concept - which holds that anyone or anything that pollutes the environment is responsible for the costs of both cleaning up and removing the pollution - has gained significant traction.

This approach is based on the idea that those who cause environmental harm should be held accountable for fixing the damage rather than assigning blame, and repairing environmental harm is consistent with this goal. The Supreme Court of India upheld the polluter pays principle as a crucial element of sustainable development in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India case.

3. Precautionary Principle: 

Three essential components of the precautionary principle were outlined by the Indian Supreme Court in the Vellore Citizens Forum case. Environmental measures should prioritise identifying, halting, and mitigating the causes of environmental degradation. Second, a lack of scientific certainty should not be an excuse for delaying important action.

Lastly, the onus of proof is on the party starting the action to show its innocence. These principles are used as a guide for making decisions when there is a possibility of environmental impact.

4. Public Trust Theory:

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and OthersThe public trust doctrine is an inherent part of national law, and by upholding this philosophy, the public interest is served by protecting and managing resources such as the air, water, sea, and forests, which are essential to society as a whole and shouldn’t be owned by individuals.

5. Principles of Sustainable Development: 

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) emphasized the idea of sustainable development in their report, which is sometimes referred to as the Brundtland Report. The term “sustainable development” describes development that satisfies current needs without jeopardizing the capacity of future generations to satiate their own. In order to strike a balance between environmental preservation and growth, the courts are essential.

The court emphasised that natural resources are enduring assets of humanity and should not be exhausted in a single generation in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP. Sustainable development has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case as a workable approach to end poverty and enhance human well-being while maintaining ecological carrying capacity.

The concept of sustainable development is not a recent idea; various societies in the past have understood the significance of maintaining equilibrium between the environment, society, and economy. The expression of this idea of a worldwide industrial and information society in the 21st century is innovative. Sustainable development has various interpretations for different people, as stated in the Brundtland Report.

Sustainable Development is development that fulfills current needs while still allowing future generations to fulfill their own needs without any limitations.

Sustainable development aims to improve the quality of life for everyone on Earth without compromising the environment’s capacity to support them forever; it requires recognizing that decisions have impacts and we need creative solutions to transform institutions and behavior, meaning it involves implementing change in policies and practices across the board.

The Supreme Court of India mentioned that the United Nations Conference on Human Environment increased awareness about the environment. The concept of “sustainable development” was first introduced at the 1972 Stockholm Conference and is now viewed as a component of Customary International Law.

The principles of sustainable development, as defined by the Supreme Court of India, involve a plan or approach for ongoing economic and social advancement while safeguarding the environment and natural resources essential for continued growth and progress.

1. The components of inter-general equity are: Principle 3 of the Rio de Janeiro Declaration states, “Right development must be accomplished so that equality meets developmental and environmental demands to current generations.” The Indian Supreme Court upheld this strategy in the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group. The main objective of the idea is to prevent the present generation from abusing non-renewable resources so as to deny future generations their advantages.

2. The following is the precautionary principle: Principle 15 of the Rio de Janeiro Declaration states that “States shall adopt the precautionary approach to the fullest extent within their capacities in order to conserve the environment.” “When there is a risk of catastrophic or irreversible harm, postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation shall not be justified by a lack of complete scientific certainty.” The Indian Supreme Court accepted this strategy in a modified form, explaining that it gave rise to the burden of proof concept in environmental cases, where those wishing to alter the status quo must provide evidence that the proposed actions will not have a negative impact.

3. Based on the idea that the polluter should, in theory, bear the cost of pollution, national authorities should work to promote the internationalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, with due regard for the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment, according to Rio Declaration Principle 16.

As the above paragraph makes clear, the intention behind the above notion is to make polluters pay for both the costs of ecosystem rehabilitation as well as victim compensation.

The Sustainable Development Doctrine has been largely upheld by the Indian Supreme Court and High Courts. India has passed a number of regulations to prevent environmental degradation. The higher court in this instance has been instrumental in interpreting those legislation in a way that aligns with the Sustainable Development Doctrine.

In order to preserve the planet’s and India’s healthy flora and fauna, sustainable development and the growth of public and private enterprise must be achieved with the least amount of permanent environmental harm possible. This is where the Indian judiciary has played a critical role. It should be noted that, in accordance with Article 32 or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been used to bring all environmental disputes before the court.

Among other things, the Indian Supreme Court has done a great deal to safeguard the environment, ecology, and wildlife living in forests. In spite of its narrow jurisdiction, the court has been quite significant in this regard. It is true that we have a sufficient number of environmental legislation; however, administrative authorities are responsible for carrying them out, hence the most crucial prerequisite for environmental protection is good governance free from corruption.

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

1. The Right To A Wholesome Environment:

The Supreme Court acknowledged in the Charan Lal Sahu case that the right to a healthy environment is a part of the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. 

The court in Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corporation Hyderabad argued that environmental pollution would violate the basic rights to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 by citing constitutional duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g).

2. Public Nuisance:

The importance of social justice in the rule of law was emphasised by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand case, which recognised Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a constitutionally required judicial procedure and held statutory authorities accountable for fulfilling their duties to minimise public disturbance and eradicate environmental pollution despite financial constraints.

3. Victim Compensation Is Included In Judicial Relief:

In the Delhi gas leak case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), the Supreme Court established two important legal principles: first, it established the concept of “no fault” responsibility, or absolute liability, for sectors that engage in risky operations, which had a significant impact on India’s liability and compensation laws; second, it upheld the court’s authority to provide remedial remedies, including monetary compensation, in cases where there has been evidence of violations of fundamental rights like Article 21.

4. Basic Human Right to Water:

The Supreme Court of India ruled in the Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. Case that water is a basic necessity for human survival and an implicit component of the rights to life, human rights, a healthy environment, and sustainable development as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The legal understanding of the fundamental right to water in India has evolved over time.

Beyond just interpreting the law, the Indian court has become a powerful force in environmental conservation. Through significant rulings and the creation of important legal ideas, the court has actively influenced environmental jurisprudence in recognition of the limitations of legislative action and the executive branch's sometimes insufficient reaction. The acknowledgement of the entitlement to a healthy environment as a crucial component of Life as a basic right has been a pillar of this activity in the courts. This Acknowledgement has enabled folks to look for legal recourse for complaints about the environment, generating a lot of public interest lawsuits (PILs) that have resulted in bringing environmental issues to the forefront of public conversation.

Additionally, the judiciary’s adoption of sustainable development principles—such as the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity—has offered a strong foundation for striking a balance between economic growth and environmental preservation. The court has often underlined the necessity of an all-encompassing strategy that takes into account the long-term environmental effects of construction operations. This focus on sustainable development has influenced court rulings on a range of topics, such as resource extraction, infrastructural expansion, and industrial growth.

However, protecting the environment effectively calls for a multifaceted strategy. Although the court is vital to the interpretation and enforcement of environmental laws, strong legislative frameworks and efficient executive branch execution are just as important. Effective implementation of environmental legislation and the prioritisation of environmental issues in decision-making processes depend heavily on good governance, accountability, and openness.

To sum up, the Indian court has shown a great commitment to protecting the environment. The court has played a vital role in protecting the country’s ecological integrity and guaranteeing a sustainable future for all by actively influencing environmental jurisprudence, defending people’ rights, and encouraging sustainable development. To solve the complex issues of environmental degradation and guarantee a safe and sustainable environment for future generations, the judiciary, legislature, and executive branch must continue their cooperation.

1.  Former Chief Justice Mr. K.G. Balakrishnan, THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: IN D. P SHRIVASTAVA MEMORIAL LECTURE, at 1 (March 20, 2010).

2. Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India, 1992 A.I.R. (S.C.) 248.

3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 996 (5) SCC 647.

4. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others, 2000 (6) SCC 213.

5. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP, 1985 SCR (3) 169.

6.  Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. Bombay Environmental Action Group, 2006 (3) SCC 434.

7. Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors, 1990 (1) SCC 613.

8. HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH TOWARDS POLLUTION FREE ENVIRONMENT, available at: www.indiastat.com/Article/14/indira/fulltext.pdf - United States

9. Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corporation Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171.

10. Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand case, 1979 3 SCC 327.

11.  C. M. ABRAHAM and SUSHILA ABRAHAM, THE BHOPAL CASE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA P. 362, Vol. 40 International and Comparative Law Quarterly April 1991, available at: http://heinonline.org 

12. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. 2000 (10) SCC 664.