15 Landmark Judgments on Environmental

Protection
By Sristi Raichandani July 8, 2020 38 Min Read

The Indian Judiciary, the custodian of constitution, has been giving beacon light for
protection of Environment while interpretation the constitution in positive manner. Judicial
Chronology is full of landmark decisions, which embarked upon that Right to life far exceeds
mere breathing and walking and developed Environment Jurisprudence. Judiciary plays a
vital role in the protection of environment. Here are some of the Landmark judgment on
Environment Protection:

1. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ;
Supreme Court of India

Judgment- This case is also known as the ‘Dehradun Valley Litigation’. In Mussoorie hill
range of Himalayas, the activity of quarrying was being carried out. Limestone was extracted
by blasting out the hills with dynamite. This practice has also resulted in cave-ins and
slumping because the mines dug deep into the hillsides, which is an illegal practice per se.
Due to lack of vegetation many landslides occurred, which killed villagers, and destroyed
their homes, cattle and agricultural land. It was contended by the mining operators that the
case should be dismissed by the court and the issue should be left to the administrative
authorities under the Environment Protection but the Court rejected the miners’ arguments
the ground that the litigation had already commenced and significant orders had been issued
by the court before the adoption of the Environment Protection Act. Later a monitoring
committee was made. Monitoring Committee directed the company in certain way but the
lessee continued to quarry limestone in an unscientific manner and in disregard of the
directions issued by the Monitoring committee. In an application filed by the committee, the
court held that the mining activity secretly carried on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused
immense damage to the area and directed the firm to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the fund of the
Monitoring committee. After years, the Supreme Court of India has held that pollution
caused by quarries adversely affects the health and safety of people and hence, the same
should be stopped. The right to wholesome environment is a part of right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case was the first requiring the
Supreme Court to balance environment and ecological integrity against industrial demands
on the forest resources. The Court issued the following directions:

· Orders that mine lessees whose operations were terminated by the court would be given
priority for leases in new areas open to limestone mining.

· Orders that the Eco-Task Force of the central department of Environment reclaim and
reforest the area damaged by mining and that workers displaced by mine closure be given
priority for jobs with the Eco-Task Force operations in the region.

2. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Ratlam is a city in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. Some of the residents of
the municipality filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the
municipality is not constructing proper drains and there is stench and stink caused by the
exertion by nearby slum-dwellers and that there was nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district instructed the municipality to prepare a proper
development plan within 6 months of the complaint submitted by the residents of Ratlam
city (approved by High Court). Afterwards the municipality came in appeal before the apex
court of India and alleged that they do not have proper financial support as well as proper
funds to comply with the direction given by the sub divisional magistrate of Ratlam city.
Respondents argued that the Municipality of Ratlam city had failed to meet its obligations
given by the sub divisional magistrate to provide for public health including by failing to
abate pollution and other hazardous waste from impacting their homes. Respondents
focused to stop pollution caused by a runoff from a nearby alcohol plant resulting in form of
malaria. The Supreme Court instructed the Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately
follow order given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city to protect the area from
pollution caused by alcohol plant flowing into the neighboring areas of the resident. Supreme
court also ordered the municipal to take necessary steps to fulfill their obligation by
providing adequate number of public laterals for specifically men and women separately
along with to provide water supply and scavenging service in morning as well as in evening
to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered that these obligations to be fulfilled
within six months of court order. The problem was due to private polluters and haphazard
town planning, it was held by Supreme Court that pollution free environment is an integral
part of right to life under Article 21. The Court Further held that in case municipality feel the
need of resources then it will raise its demand from State government by elitist projects,
request loans from the State Government from the savings account of public health
expenditure to fulfill the resource requirement for the implementation of courts order.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (Gas Leak In Shriram Factory); Supreme Court of India

Judgment- On the midnight of 2/3-12, 1984; there was a leakage of poisonous gas (methyl
isocyanate) from Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located at Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh. This disaster was described as “World’s worst industrial disaster” as it claimed the
lives of 2260 people and caused serious injuries with a variety of complications to about 6
lakhs of people. When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, another gas
disaster took place from Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries (belonging to Delhi Textile
Mills Ltd.), Delhi on 4th and 6th December 1985. One advocate died and several others
injured. MC Mehta, a leading legal practitioner, Supreme Court filed a “public interest
litigation” petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court through P.N.
Bhagwati, C.J., keeping in mind the one-year-old great gas disaster of Bhopal, evolved a new
rule, “Absolute Liability” in preference to 1868 rule of Strict Liability. Issues Raised were-
Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not?

If not, what measures are required to be taken to prevent the leakages, explosions, air and
water pollution? To find out the number of safety devices exists in the plant and others
though necessary is not installed in the plant. Court held that the “absolute liability” of a
hazardous chemical manufacturer to give compensation to all those affected by an accident
was introduced in this case and it was the first time compensation was paid to victims. The
court laid down following principles- The management, Shri Ram Foods was required to
deposit in the court, Rs. 20 lakhs as security for payment of compensation to the victims. A
green belt of 1 to 5 K.M. widths around such industries should be provided. The court
directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court consisting of a Judge and
two experts (Ecological Sciences Research Experts) as members to assist the judge in
deciding the environmental cases. Pursuant upon the recommendation, the Govt. of India
passed the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 to deal with the cases of environmental
pollution.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Ganga Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- In 1985, M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition in the nature of mandamus to prevent
these leather tanneries from disposing of the domestic and industrial waste and effluents in
the Ganga River. In this petition, the petitioner requested the court to request the Supreme
Court (the Court) to restrain the respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till
the time they incorporate certain treatment plants for the treatment of toxic effluents to
arrest water pollution. The Court highlighted the importance of certain provisions in our
constitutional framework, which enshrine the significance and the need for protecting our
environment. Article 48-A provides that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of the
Constitution of India imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the
natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. The Court stated the
importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act). This
act was passed to prevent and control water pollution and maintaining water quality. This act
established central and stated boards and conferred them with power and functions relating
to the control and prevention of water pollution. Now, the question was raised that what is
Trade Effluent? A Trade Effluent is any substance in the form of solid, liquid, or gaseous state
which is discharged from any establishment used for carrying out any trade or industrial
activity, other than domestic sewage. It was noted that the leather industry is one of the
significant industries besides paper and textiles consuming large quantities of water. Most
of the water used is discharged as wastewater. The wastewater contains toxic substances
that deplete the Oxygen content of the clean river water in which they are discharged. This
results in the death of aquatic life and emanates foul odor. The Court held the despite
provisions in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Act no effective steps
were taken by the State Board to prevent the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga. Also,
despite the provisions in the Environment Protection Act, no effective steps were taken by
the Central Government to prevent the public nuisance caused by the tanneries at Kanpur. In
a historic judgment in 1987, the court ordered the closure of a number of polluting tanneries
near Kanpur. The court held that- “Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to
its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment
plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence.” The Court ordered the tanneries to
establish primary treatment plants, if not Secondary treatment plants. That is the minimum
which the tanneries should do in the circumstances of the case.

5. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed against the excessive pollution caused by River Palar due
to the release of pollutants by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Palar River is the main source of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding people.
Later, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore discovered that
approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land have turned either entirely or partially
unsuitable for cultivation. This is one of the landmark cases whereby the Supreme Court
critically analyzed the relationship between environment and industrial development. The
question which emerged for thought under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court was
whether the tanneries ought to be permitted to keep on working at the expense of lives of
lakhs of individuals. It was presented by the petitioner that the whole surface and sub-soil
water of river Palar has been intoxicated and has resulted in the non-accessibility of
consumable water to the inhabitants of the region. The Supreme Court analyzing the report
conveyed its judgment putting forth all attempts to keep up a concordance among condition
and improvement. The Court conceded that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign
exchange earner and furthermore gives work to a large number of individuals. In any case, at
the equivalent time, it wrecks nature and represents a wellbeing danger to everybody. The
court conveying its judgment in favor of the petitioner guided all the Tanneries to submit a
whole of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the Collector’s office. The Court additionally coordinated the
State of Tamil Nadu to grant Mr. M. C. Mehta with an entirety of Rs. 50,000 as gratefulness
towards his endeavors for the security of the Environment.

6. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.; Supreme Court of
India

Judgment- In this case the respondent industry is ought to be establishing a new factory for
the production of vegetable oils in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent industry
purchased a piece of land in Indore village named Peddashpur. Within the range of the village
the reservoirs that provides drinking water for the 5 million of people around the area. Issues
raised were- The validity of the orders passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board? The
correctness of the orders of the Appellate Authority under section 28 of the Water Act, 1974?
The validity of exemption granted for the operation of the 10 k.m. rule? In what ways that the
technological aspects of the environmental law cases ought to be adjudicated? In the
impugned judgment, the Supreme Court relied on the judicial doctrine of the Precautionary
Principle. The Precautionary Principle as it is very name suggests needs the authorities in
charge to anticipate, prevent and attack the reason behind environmental pollution. This rule
is based on the salutary theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and safety than in
the wrong way wherever environmental damage, once done, is also irreversible. In other
words, one ought to take measures in anticipation of environmental damage, instead of to
hunt cure when the damage is inflicted. It would be better to stay safe earlier then be sorry
later. Hindrance is healthier than cure. The Court in the present judgment directed that the
authority to be appointed under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 that
shall implement the Precautionary Principle and also the Polluter Pays Principle. Further, it
had been discovered that the new conception envisages that when a risk of great or
irreversible damage to the environment is perceived, the burden of proof lies on the one that
is proposing to undertake the activity in question.

7. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The Indian Express published an article reporting that a private company, Span
Motels Private Ltd. (‘the Motel Company’), owner of Span Resorts, had floated an ambitious
project called Span Club. Kamal Nath who was the Minister of Environment and Forests had
direct links with this company. The company encroached upon 27.12 big has of land which
also included forest land. The land was regularized and subsequently leased out to the
company on 11th April 1994. Issues raised were- Whether the court has wrongly inducted Mr.
Kama Nath as a Respondent in the present petition? Whether the construction activity
carried out by the Motel Company justified? The Supreme Court rejected this contention and
held that the forest lands which have been given on lease to the Motel by the State
Governments are situated at the bank of the river Beas. The Beas is a young and dynamic
river and it changes its course very often. The right bank of the river is where the Motel is
located comes under forest. The area is ecologically fragile and therefore it should not be
converted into private ownership. The Supreme Court applied the ‘Doctrine of Public Trust’ to
the present case. Doctrine of Pubic trust is an ancient legal doctrine which states that
certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by
Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Public Trust
Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the
forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be unjustified to
make them a subject of private ownership. Therefore- The Court quashed the lease-deed by
which forested land was leased to the Motel Company and held that the construction activity
carried out by the Motel Company was not justified. The Motel was ordered to pay
compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environmental and ecology of the
area. The Motel was ordered to construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4
meters for the building of the motel beyond which they were not allowed to use the land of
the river basin. The Court restricted the Motel from discharging untreated effluent into the
river. Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board was directed to inspect and keep a check.

8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Vehicular Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Union Territory of Delhi has a total population of 96 lakhs. Out of this population
approximately 90 lakh people reside in urban areas. At the time of independence the
population of Delhi was around 5 lakh. In nearly 40 years, it multiplied by 19 times. This writ
petition was filed by M.C. Mehta requesting the court to pass appropriate orders for the
reduction of Vehicular Pollution in Delhi. Supreme Court in this case held that Indian
constitution recognizes the importance of protection of environment, life, flora and fauna by
the virtue of Article 51-A and Directive principles of state policy. Therefore, it is the duty of
the state to protect the environment and all the persons using automobiles should have a fair
idea of the harmful effects on the environment due to emissions caused by their vehicles. A
committee was setup to look in to the problem and decide on what can be done. The
committee was setup with the following objectives –

To make an assessment of the technologies available for vehicular pollution control in the
world;

To make an assessment of the current status of technology available in India for

controlling vehicular pollution;

To look at the low cost alternatives for operating vehicles at reduced pollution levels in the
metropolitan cities of India.
 To examine the feasibility of measures to reduce/eliminate pollution from motor vehicles
both on short term and long term basis and make appropriate recommendations in this
regard;

To make specific recommendations on the administrative/legal regulations required for

implementing the recommendations.

The committee was ordered to give reports in two months and also mention the steps taken.

9. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed by the way of Public Interest Litigation by Subhash Kumar
for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the discharge of
sludge/slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament
enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the
wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution. The State Pollution
Control Board failed to take actions against the Company and permitted the pollution of the
water and the State of Bihar instead of taking actions, it is granting a lease on the payment of
royalty for collection of slurry to various persons. Issue raised was whether the water of the
river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of the slurry from the Company? The apex court
held that the right to get pollution free water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Following this, the right to pollution free environment was incorporated under the head of
right to life and all the laws courts within the Indian Territory were bound to follow. Public
health and ecology were held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the constitution of a
green bench was also ordered by the Supreme Court. The Tata Iron & Steel Co. has been
granted sanction from the Board for discharging effluents from their outlets under Sections
25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Before granting the
discharge of the effluents to the Bokaro River, the Board has analyzed and monitored that the
effluents generated did not pollute the river. It was clear from the facts that and pleadings on
behalf of the Respondent that there was no good reason to accept Petitioner’s contentions
that the water of Bokaro River was polluted by the discharge of slurry/sludge from the
respondent Company, on the other hand, the bench found that effective steps were taken by
State Pollution Control Board to check pollution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

10. Samit Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.; National Green Tribunal
Judgment- In this case, an environmentalist filed an application regarding the damage
caused by the sinking of a ship which was carrying coal, fuel oil and diesel. Due to the
sinking, a thick oil layer was formed on the surface of the sea which caused damage to the
marine ecosystem. This case was held to involve questions of public importance and
significance of environmental jurisprudence. The tribunal noticed the negligence. The sinking
of the ship was the result of the negligence of the Respondents and upholding the principle
of Polluter Pay. The Tribunal has further held that it has power to grant compensation for the
costs incurred by the Central Government to clean the wrecks which may pose hazards to
navigation and to marine environment. The Court thereby reaffirmed the “Precautionary
Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees protection
of life and personal liberty. The Tribunal held that the ship sinking accident is said to have led
to the pollution of the marine environment on three counts: (a) Dumping of the cargo on the
ship, i.e., coal in to the sea; (b) Release of the Fuel oil stored on board and the resultant oil
spill caused by it and (c) wreckage of the ship itself, which contained the materials. In the
present case, the ship used in the transport is unseaworthy and the respondents should have
never used the ship for transport purpose. Therefore, in the present case, sinking of the ship
is held equivalent to dumping. Environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores was imposed.
This is one of the biggest compensation ever made by private entity to government.

11. Ms. Betty C. Alvares v. The State of Goa and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- A complaint regarding various instances of illegal construction in the Coastal

Regulation Zone of Candolim, Goa was made by a personal of foreign nationality. Her name
was Betta Alvarez. The first objection was that Betty Alvarez had no locus standi in the
matter because she was not an Indian citizen and thus legally incompetent to file the petition
under Article 21 because as a non-citizen, she has not been guaranteed any right under the
Indian Constitution. The second objection was that the matter was barred by the law of
limitation and should be dismissed. The case was initiated in the Honorable High Court of
Bombay Bench at Goa in the form of a PIL but by an order dated Oct 23, 2012, the Writ
Petition was transferred to the National Green Tribunal. Therefore The Tribunal in bold terms
stated that even assuming that the Applicant – Betty Alvarez is not a citizen of India, the
Application is still maintainable as she had filed several other writ petitions and contempt
applications before she filed the present application, in which she had asserted that the
Respondents had raised some illegal constructions by way of which they were encroaching
the sea beaches along with governmental properties. The Court laid down in very bold terms
that once it is found that any person can file a proceeding related to the environmental
dispute, Ms. Betty’s application is maintainable without regards to the question of her
nationality.

12. Art of Living Case on Yamuna Flood Plain; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- The National Green Tribunal (NGT) held the Art of Living Foundation of Sri Sri Ravi
Shankar responsible for the alleged damage caused to the Yamuna floodplains due to the
World Cultural Festival organized in March 2016. NGT Panel found that the organizers of the
Art of Living Festival violated the environmental norms and it has severely damaged the food
plane area at the bank of Yamuna River in Delhi. Earlier, the Government of Delhi and Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) has permitted the Art of living festival organizers but it was an
under some conditions. The NGT panel imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on Art of Living
Foundation as environmental compensation after coming down heavily on the foundation for
not disclosing its full plans. The panel also warned AOL Foundation that in case of failure to
pay the penalized amount the grant of Rs.2.5 crore which the ministry of culture is supposed
to pay AOL will be attached. While reacting with dismay to the verdict, the Art of Living
Foundation expressed disappointment and claimed that it had complied with all environment
laws and norms and its’ submissions were not considered by NGT. The Art of Living
Foundation said in a statement that-“We will appeal to Supreme Court. We are confident that
we will get justice.”

13. -Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green
Tribunal

Judgment- The Save Mon Region Federation, on behalf of the Monpa indigenous community,
challenged the environmental clearance granted for the construction of a hydroelectric dam
on the Naymjang Chhu River. The Federation pointed to faults in the environmental impact
assessment (EIA) procedure and a lack of close scrutiny of the project by the expert
appraisal committee (EAC). The National Green Tribunal concluded: “It is true that hydel
power project provides eco friendly renewable source of energy and its development is
necessary, however, we are of the considered view that such development should be
‘sustainable development’ without there being any irretrievable loss to environment. We
are also of the view that studies done should be open for public consultation in order to offer
an opportunity to affected persons having plausible stake in environment to express their
concerns following such studies. This would facilitate objective decision by the EAC on all
environmental issues and open a way for sustainable development of the region.” Therefore,
the project was close to a wintering site for a bird Black-necked Crane, which is included
under Schedule I species under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. It also comes under the
‘Threatened Birds of India’ literature by the appellants in this case. It also had other
endangered species such as the red panda, snow leopard, etc. The tribunal gave orders to
suspend the clearance for the project. It also directed the EAC to make a new proposal for
environmental clearance. The tribunal also directed the Ministry of Environment and Forest in
the country to prepare a study on the protection of the bird involved in the case.

14. Almitra H. Patel & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- This case has been the biggest case dealing with the solid waste in India. In this
case, Mrs. Almitra Patel and another had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India before the Apex Court whereby the Petitioner sought the immediate and urgent
improvement in the practices that are presently adopted for the way Municipal Solid Waste
or garbage is treated in India. The Tribunal found that the magnitude of the problem was
gigantic because over a lakh tonnes of raw garbage is dumped every day and there is no
proper treatment of this raw garbage which is dumped just outside the city limits on land,
along highway, lakes. The Tribunal noted the requirement of conversion of this waste into a
source of power and fuel to be used for society’s benefit, taking into consideration the
Principles of Circular Economy. The tribunal considered it one of the major problems faced
by India over the last few years as lakh tonnes of garbage go without proper treatment and
just dumped outside the city in the outskirts. The tribunal noted the requirement to solve this
problem and make it a source of power for the benefit of society. After hearing the case the
tribunal issued over 25 directions. The tribunal asked all the states and UTs to strictly follow
and implement the Solid Management Rules, 2016. A complete prohibition on open burning
of waste on lands was made after the case. Absolute segregation has been made mandatory
in waste to energy plants and landfills should be used for depositing inert waste only and are
subject to bio-stabilization within 6 months. The most important direction of the Tribunal
was a complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfills.
15. K.M. Chinnappa, T.N. Godavarnam v. Union of India & ors. ; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The court held that- Environmental law is an instrument to protect and improve
the environment and to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the
environment. In view of the enormous challenges thrown by the industrial revolutions, the
legislatures throw out the world are busy in this exercise. In a number of cases, sentences of
imprisonment have been imposed. Apart from the direct cost to business of complying with
the stricter regulatory controls, the potential liabilities for non compliance are also
increasing. In the present case the Forest Advisory Committee under the Conservation Act
on 11/07/2001 examined the renewal proposal in respect of the Company’s mining lease.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests deferred a formal decision on the said
recommendation as the matter was pending before this court. Taking note of factual
background, it is proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee
constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed
till the end of 2005 by which the time the weathered secondary ore available in the already
broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfillment of the
recommendations made by the Committee on ecological aspects. Before, we part with this
case; note that with concern that the State and Central Government were not very consistent.
Whatever be the justification, it was but imperative due application of mind should have been
made before taking particular stand. Certain proceedings have been initiated against the
company and these proceedings shall be considered by the respective forums/courts.