Public Interest Litigation and Environmental law

Public Interest
Litigation and
Environment
By,
Swathi K. Hosamani
4th year B.A.,LL.B(Hons)

Introduction
The term ‘ Environment’ is formulated on the word ‘ Environ’
derived from the French word ‘ Environner’, which means “to
surround.” Thus, term ‘ Environment’ literally means “the
surroundings and conditions under which man lives and works.”
It is difficult to define the term ‘Environment’, but under
section 2(a) of Environment Protection Act, 1986 is defined as:
“environment includes water, air and land and the inter- relationship
which exists among and between water, air and land and human
beings, other living creatures, plants, micro- organism and property.”

Significance of PIL for
Environmental Protection
The Council for Public Interest Litigation set up by the Ford Foundation
in USA defined the “Public Interest Litigation” in its report of Public of
Interest Law, USA, 1976:
“Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts
provide legal representation to previously uninterested groups and
interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary
market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant
segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and
interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic
minorities and others.”
PIL in India was initiated and fostered by a few judges of the Supreme
Court. A complete change in the jurisprudence scenario in the 1970’s with

The ability to invoke the original jurisdiction of
Supreme Court and the High Court under Article 32 and
Article 226 of the Constitution is a remarkable step
forward in providing protection for the environment.
Community interests can also be agitated under
law of Public Nuisance incorporated in Cr. P. C. An
individual, a group of individuals, or an executive
magistrate, suo motu, can move to the courts.
A number of cases on environmental issues have
been initiated through PIL. Beginning with the
Dehradun limestone quarrying case in 1983, followed
by the Ganga Water Pollution case, Delhi Vehicular
case, Oleum Gas case, Tehri Dam case, Narmada Dam
case, Dahanu Thermal Power Plant case, Bichhri village
industrial pollution case, Vellore leather industry
pollution case, Sariska wildlife protection case, and T. N.

Padma Shri MC Mehta
Mahesh Chandra Mehta is a public interest attorney from India. He
single-handedly won numerous landmark judgments from
India’s Supreme Court since 1984, including introducing lead- free
gasoline to India and reducing the industrial pollution fouling the Ganga
and eroding the Taj
Mahal. He was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 1996 for his
continuous fights in Indian courts against pollution-causing industries. He
received the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Asia for Public Service in 1997.
The Government of India awarded him the civilian honour of the Padma
Shri in 2016.
He has made the fight to protect India’s environment his unending
mission. He has pioneered legal activism for environmental protection and
is proof that one man can make a difference.

Leading Public Interest Litigations
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra(RLEK) v. Union
of India AIR 1985 SC 652
This case is also referred as ‘Dehradun limestone quarrying case,’ which
was filed in 1983, was the first PIL filed for the environmental protection.
In this case the court ordered for the closing down of certain category
of lime stone quarries and observed: “the consequence of this order made
by would be that the lessees of lime stone quarries which have been
directed to close down permanently, would be thrown out of business in
which they have invested large sums of money and expended considered
time and effort. This would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but it is
price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the
people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological
balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes
and agricultural land and under affection of air, water and environment.”

Ganga Water Pollution Case
In 1985, M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition in the nature of mandamus to
prevent these leather tanneries from disposing off domestic and industrial
waste and effluents in the Ganga river. This writ petition was bifurcated by
the Supreme Court into two parts known as Mehta I and Mehta II.
Mehta I [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 463]
In this petition the petitioner requested the court to restrain the
respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till the time they
incorporate certain treatment plants for treatment of toxic effluents to arrest
water pollution.
The Court identified the polluters and ordered each of the firm to meet
the effluent standards within a period of 3 months or else face closure.
Court also observed that the financial capacity of tanneries should be
considered irrelevant while asking them to install primary treatment plants.
A tannery cannot be allowed to continue to be in existence just because it

Mehta I I [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR
1988 SC 1037]
This petition was taken up by the Court against the municipal
bodies, the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. The Supreme Court noted
the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika was established under the Uttar
Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959.
The Court relied on Section 114, 251, 388, 396, 398, 405 and
of the Adhiniyam. These provisions deal with the duties of the Nagar
Mahapalika or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari appointed under the
Adhiniyam with regard to the disposal of sewage and protection of
the environment.
The Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to take
appropriate action under the provisions of the Adhiniyam for the
prevention of water pollution in the river. Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika
was ordered to increase the size of sewers in the labour colonies
increase the number of public latrines and urinals for the use of
people. Whenever applications for licenses to establish new

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and ors. AIR 1987 SC
1091
This case is famously known as “Oleum Gas case.” There was a leakage of
Oleum gas from the unit of Sriram Foods and Fertiliser industries in December
1985. This caused the death of one person and affected many people in the city
of Delhi. M. C. Mehta filed a petition in Supreme court to claim compensation
for the damage and losses caused to health of public and the environment and
also pleaded that the closed establishments should not be allowed to restart.
In this case the court observed that “we cannot possibly adopt a policy of
not having any chemical or other hazardous industry merely because they pose
hazard or risk to the community. Industries, even if hazardous, have to be set up
since they are essential for economic development and advancement of well
being of the people. We can hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the
community by taking all necessary measures for locating such industries in a
manner which pose least risk or danger to the community and maximizing safety
requirements in such industries.”
The court also ordered to give compensation to all those affected under “

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum(VCWF) v. Union of India and
ors. AIR 1996 SC 2715
The petitioner filed PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution. This was filed
against the large- scale pollution caused to River Palar due to the discharge of
untreated effluents by the tanneries and other industries in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Due to this nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land had become unfit for
cultivation.
The court observed that “ the ‘ Precautionary Principle’ and ‘ The Polluter
Pays’ principle are essential features of ‘Sustainable Development’. The ‘
Precautionary Principle’ was declared to be an essential feature of sustainable
development. This principle has been incorporated into municipal law to include:
(i) Environment measures - by the State Government and the statutory Authorities
must anticipate, prevent' and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage lack of scientific
certainty should not be used as the reason for postponing, measures to prevent
environmental depredation.

Indian Council for Enviro- legal Action v. Union of India and
ors. 1996(3) SCC 212
This case is also known as Bichhri village industrial pollution case. The
petitioner filed PIL to stop the pollution in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, caused
by chemical industrial plants located there.
The court ordered closure of all these plants, also the industries were
directed to deposit compensation. Court applied “Polluter Pays “ principle.
It was also held that: “While economic development should not be
allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread
environmental destruction and violation, at the same time, the necessity to
preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand,
in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment
and vice- versa, but there should be development while taking due care and
ensuring the protection of environment.”

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 382
This case is popularly known as “Delhi Vehicular case”, where the Supreme
Court delivered a landmark judgment against vehicular emissions in India.
Court ordered that all government vehicles in the Delhi city to be converted
to “Compressed Natural Gas”(CNG) and mandated the phasing out of lead from
all fuel in major cities of India. The Delhi Government failed to comply with the
direction of Supreme Court. Later a committee known as Bhure lal committee
was set up to look into the problem of Vehicular Pollution in Delhi and to find
methods to arrest pollution.
Later, Bhure lal committee’s statutory recommendations mandated all
buses in the city must be converted to CNG before March 31, 2001. As a result,
Delhi has become the first city in the world to have complete public
transformation running on CNG.

Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India AIR
1992 SC 514
Tarun Bharat Sangh, a voluntary Organisation interested in protection
of environment, approached the court complaining that widespread illegal
mining activity was going on in the area declared as Tiger Reserve in Altar
District of Rajasthan. In the interest of ecology, environment and rule of law,
it said, the activity should stop. The petitioner alleged that Government of
Rajasthan illegally issued 400 mining license to carry on mining of lime and
dolomite stones inside the protected area.
The court observed that once an area is declared as protected forest, it
comes under the purview of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 and no non-
forest activity must be carried out except with prior approval of Central
Government. The Supreme Court held that no mining operations shall be
carried on within the protected area as it is a non- forest activity.

T. N. Godavaram Thirumulkpad v. Union of
India (1997) 2 SCC 267
In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ petition with the
Supreme Court of India to protect the Nilgiris forest land from deforestation by
illegal timber operations. In this case, the Supreme Court in 1996 reinterpreted
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and expanded the scope of the term
"forest". This case is being heard for the last twelve years and is a part of what is
termed as "continuing mandamus", whereby the Court, rather than passing final
judgments, keeps on passing orders and directions with a view to monitor the
functioning of the executive.
Court in one of the interim orders of the Godavarman case, the Supreme
Court asked for measures such as relocation of industries, identification of
ecologically sensitive areas, consultation with leading institutions and non-
government organizations having expertise in forest ecology, intensive
patrolling and vigilance against exploitation of vulnerable areas and institution
of state level committees to evolve licensing regulations. In another interim
order in 1999, the Court detected absence of faith on the part of government
agencies and prohibited cutting of trees, even those considered as diseased till

Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti and ors. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and ors. (1992) 1 SCC 44 (Supp).
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed
in public interest by Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti and others. The
petitioners have prayed that the Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh and
the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation be restrained from constructing
and implementing the Tehri Hydro Power Project and the Tehri Dam as this
would lead to serious threat of life to North India people as well as
environment and the place where the dam was to be constructed is prone
to earthquakes.
The court dismissed the petition on grounds that it was satisfied with
the efforts made by Union of India to ensure the safety of the dam and
highly relied on the High level committee appointed by the Government of
India and Prof. Jai Krishna’s report which stated that all questions of safety
of the project was considered more than once.

Dahanu Talukha Environment Protection Group and anr. V.
Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. And ors. (1991) 2
SCC 539
The petition filed an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High
Court whereby the High Court had upheld the sanction granted to the
Company for setting up a thermal power plant. The company had sought to
set up various thermal power plants at various sites in Maharashtra, and
Dahanu was one of them.
Court in this matter rejected the contention and stated that this
committee do not represent the decision of the government and cannot be
binding on the Central Government. The court, rejected both the arguments
of the petitioner which was regarding that the approval was contrary to the
Environmental Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants, 1987 and that it
violated Coastal Regulation Zone guidelines. It was satisfied that the
Government fully considered all aspects of the environmental pollution

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and ors.
AIR 2000 SC 3751
The petitioner filed a PIL in 1994 before Supreme Court challenging
that the Government of India had not considered all relevant issues
particularly that it had not given project affected people to make
representation before it regarding the Sardar Sarovar Project.
The Court observed that the clearance was given in 1987 and was
challenged in 1994 and stated that the pleas relating to height of the dam
and other issues except implementation of relief and rehabilitation, cannot
be permitted to be raised at this belated stage.
It is one of the most controversial judgments on PIL by Supreme court
regarding environment protection and violation of human rights.

M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
A private company had built a motel Span Motel pvt. Ltd. on the Bank
of Beas. It was owned by Kamal Nath who was the Minister for Environment
and Forests. They diverted the course of river Beas to beautify the motel and
also encroached upon some forest land.
The court delivered a landmark judgment and established principle of
exemplary damages for the first time in India. The court said polluter must
pay to reverse the damage caused by his act and imposed a fine pf Rs.
10,00,000 on Span Motel as exemplary damages. The Supreme court of India
recognised the Polluter Pays principles and Public Trust Doctrine.

Recent Public Interest Litigations
1. Vanashakti Public Trust and ors v. Union of India and ors.
decided on 4th October, 2019
2. Bombay Environmental Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra and
ors.
decided on 17th September, 2018
3. Kalia Sethi v. State of Odisha and ors.
decided on 9th August, 2017

Conclusion
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need but not every
man’s greed”
-
Mahatma Gandhi
Public Interest Litigation has been used by courts as an effective tool in
dealing with issues relating to environment and its protection. Also, the
courts must ensure that the use of PIL for private interest should not be
entertained because it defeats the very purpose for which the PIL was
introduced in the first place. Another concern is the increasing number of
cases on environmental issues due to which other areas of judicial operation
are suffering. But close analysis of PIL on environmental issues reveals that
there has been a fundamental change in the environmental jurisprudence.
Certain new principles and declaration of new doctrines as part of domestic

Public Interest Litigation and Environmental law

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Public Interest Litigation and Environmental law

Recently uploaded

In this document

Public Interest Litigation and Environmental law