Decision of Apex Court On Ecology & Air

Pollution
The Supreme Court of India has made immense contribution to
environmental jurisprudence of our country. It has entertained quite a lot
of genuine public interest litigation (PIL) cases or class-action cases under
Art. 32 of the Constitution. So have the High Courts under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. These Courts have issued various directions on a number of
issues concerning environment as part of their overall writ jurisdiction and
in that context they have developed a vast environmental jurisprudence.
They have used Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and expanded the
meaning of the word life in that Article as including a right to a healthy
environment

The Supreme Court of India is considered, in recent years, as the most
important dispenser of environmental justice. By delivering landmark
judgments that have, indeed, altered the common people's perception of
the court of law as just a forum for dispute resolution and nothing else; the
Supreme Court has carved out a niche for itself. It holds a unique position
and has been projected as a ' Green Court' in contributing to the evolution
of environmental jurisprudence in India. An attempt has been made in this
article to analyze how some of the judgment have contributed to the
enrichment of environmental jurisprudence. This section analyses the
contribution of Judges to the jurisprudence of Environmental Law and to
the development of international environmental law. The analysis seeks
not only to deal with the specific content of some judgment but also to
draw a broader picture of views of the Judges towards protection and
development of environment and related laws.

Judicial Approach In Environment Related Cases
If one examines the judicial approach in cases involving environment-
related objections against the construction of infrastructural projects, there
have of course been different approaches taken by different courts in the
past. One can broadly conceptualise these judicial approaches under three
categories. The first of these can be described as a pro-project approach
wherein judges tend to emphasize the potential benefits of a particular
project or commercial activity. The second approach can be described as
that of judicial restraint wherein judges defer to the determinations made
by executive agencies and experts with regard to the environmental
feasibility of a project. The third approach is that of rigorous judicial
review wherein judges tend to scrutinize the environmental impact of
particular activities.

Role Of Judiciary
The judiciary, to fulfill its constitutional obligations was and is always
prepared to issue appropriate orders, directions and writs against those
persons who cause environmental pollution and ecological imbalance. This
is evident from a plethora of cases decided by starting from the Ratlam
Municipality Case. This case provoked the consciousness of the judiciary
to a problem which had not attracted much attention earlier. The Supreme
Court responded with equal anxiety and raised the issue to come within the
mandate of the Constitution.

Verdict Of Honourabale Apex Court:
The first case where the supreme court recognized the right, though not
directly, in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. state of U.P.where
the Supreme Court gave directions for removal of open drains and
prevention of public excretion by the nearby slum dwellers. The matter
came up by way of a criminal appeal. The Court relied upon Art 47 which
is in the Part IV of the Constitution relating to the Directive Principles.
That Article refers to improvement of public health In that judgment, the
Supreme Court gave several directions to the Ratlam Municipality for
maintenance of public health In this case the court after hearing both the
sides held inter alia that the threat to ecological balance resulting in the
deterioration of the quality of environment was thus apparently treated as
involving a threat to right to life. Here it is to be said it other words that
the right to clean environment was indirectly recognized as an ingredient
of right to live. That judgment was followed in B.L. Wadhera vs. Union of
India and directions were issued to the Municipal Corporation of old Delhi
and New Delhi, for removal of garbage etc.

Long before the Court enlarged its levels of scrutiny, the Supreme Court,
in Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal: AIR 1987 SC 1109, laid
down rules which unfortunately sound like Wednesbury rules applied in
administrative law. It said Whenever a problem of ecology is brought
before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Art. 48A of the
Constitution . and Art. 51A(g).When the Court is called upon to give effect
to the Directive Principles and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to
shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is
a matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the Court may do
is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and
irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further but
how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case. The
Court may always give necessary directions. This limited nature of
scrutiny is no longer followed today by the Courts. Today the Courts
appoint independent experts and test the claims of parties on the basis of
the expert advice that is given to the Court.

Rural litigation and entitlement Kendra vs state of U.P.In this case the
relevant issue for the purpose of Apex Court discussion is whether the
limestone mining activities in the Mussorie-Dehradun region caused
ecological disturbance and thus violated the right to life of the people in
that region. The Supreme Court declared that these activities polluted the
environment and thus violated the right to life of the people. In this case
carrying haphazard and dangerous limestone quarrying practices in
Mussorie hill range of the Himalayas, mines blasting out the hills with
dynamite, extracting lime stone from thousand of acres had upset the
hydrological system of the valley. The S.C. ordered the closing down of
limestone quarrying the valley and observed. This would undoubtedly
cause hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting
and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment
with minimum disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable
hazard to them and their cattle, homes and agricultural land and under
affection of air, water and environment.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the importance of forest conservation
in the Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others In this case,
the petitioner appealed to the Court when the State Government rejected
an application for renewal of a mining lease under Section 2 of the Forest (
Conservation) Act o f 1980, which requires permission to be obtained
from the Central Government for using forest areas for non-forest
purposes. The State government rejected the application of the appellant
for renewal of lease on the ground that the land fell under the Reserved
Forest area and hence the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 applied to the
forests. The contention of the petitioner was that by the order dated 29 th
November, 1971, the said lands were dereserved from the forest by the
forest department and allotted the land for the quarrying purpose to the
appellant. The appeal in the Supreme Court centred on the question of a
proper balance between the need of exploitation of the mineral resources
lying within forest areas, the preservation of ecological balance, and
curbing the growing environmental deterioration.

In dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court said that the rationale
underlying the Forest ( Conservation) Act, 1980 was recognition of the
serious consequences of deforestation, including ecological imbalances,
and the prevention of further deforestation. This was an Act passed by the
Parliament to provide for the conservation of forest and for matters
connected therewith or ancillary thereto. The Court observed that in this
case the renewal o the mining leases will lead to further deforestation or at
least will not help reclaiming the areas where deforestation has taken
place. The court also held that if the permission had been granted before
coming into operation of the 1980 Act and the forest land has been cleared
or broken up, Section 2 of the 1980 Act would not have been applied in
such a case. In this way, the court dismissed the applicants' demand for a
renewal of the quarry leases and emphasized the implementation of Forest
Act of 1980, in order to prevent further deforestation.

In State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan, AIR 1989 SC, page 1, the Supreme
Court was dealing with an appeal concerning protection to wild life in
Kundurugutu Range forest in Bihar. The Supreme Court quoted from a
decree issued by Emperor Asoka in the third century BC, that has a
particularly contemporary ring in the matter of preservation of wild life
and environment. The decree said: twenty six years after my coronation, I
declared that the following animals were not to be killed: parrots, mynas,
the arunas, ruddy-geese, wild geese, the nandimukha, cranes, bats, queen
ants, terrapins, boneless fish, rhinoceroses and all quadrupleds which are
not useful or edible forests must not be burned. The Supreme Court
observed:

Environmentalists conception of the ecological balance in nature is based
on the fundamental concept of nature as the series of complex biotic
communities of which a man is an inter-dependent part and that it should
not be given to a part to trespass and diminish the whole. The largest
single factor in the depletion of the wealth of animal life in nature has been
the civilized man operating directly through excessive commercial hunting
or, more disastrously, indirectly through invading or destroying natural
habitats.

The Apex court in Damodar Rao Vs S.O., municipal corp. held that the
slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by environmental
pollution and spoliation should also be regarded as amounting to violation
of Act 21 of Indian constitution. In Subash Kumar vs. state of Bihar, the
apex court observed: right to life is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the
constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water
and air for full enjoyment of life. If any thing endangers or impairs that
quality of life in derogation of laws a citizen has right to have resource to
art 32 of the constitution for removing the pollution of water or air, which
may be, deter mental to the quality of life. while restraining 400 licensees
who had mining licenses granted in Rajasthan to mine lime and dolmite
stones in the sariska Tiger Park the Supreme Court, in Tarun Bharat
Sangh, Alwar vs. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 514, observed that this kind
of litigation should not be treated as the usual adversarial litigation.
Petitioners were acting in aid of a purpose, high on the national agenda.
Petitioners concern for the environment, ecology and the wild life should
be shared by the Government. Holding that the Government had no power
to sanction lease of the land vested in the Municipality for being used as
open space for public use the Supreme Court in Virulent Gar vs. State of
Haryana 1995(2) SCC 577 observed, after referring to the Stockholm
Declaration of 1972 and Principle 1 laid down in that Conference and after
referring to Art. 48-A, Art. 47 and Art 51A(g), and Art. 21, as follows:

The word environment is of broad spectrum which brings within its
ambit, hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance It is, therefore, not
only the duty of the State but also the duty of every citizen to maintain
hygienic environment. The State, in particular has duty in that behalf and
to shed its extravagant unbridled sovereign power and to forge in its policy
to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. Art. 21 protects
right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment
including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its
ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance
free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot
be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental
pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution etc should be
regarded as amounting to violation of Art. 21. Therefore, hygienic
environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be
impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy
environment. Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a
matter of grave concern for human existence. Promoting environmental
protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising
the man-made and the natural environment. Therefore, there is a
constitutional imperative on the State Government and the municipalities,
not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an
imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and
improve both the man-made and the natural environment.

In M. C. Mchta V. Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries and Union of
India (Oleum Gas Leak Case -I) petitioner filed the write against the
oleum gas leakage and for closing down one of the units of Shriram food
and Fertilizers industries belonging to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. The Court
allowed to restart plant subject to certain stringent conditions laid down in
the order .But the notable development where the rule in Rylands vs.
Fletcher was modified by the Court , holding that the enterprise which is
engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a
potential threat to the health and safety of persons working in the factory
and residing in the surrounding areas, owes an absolute and non-delegable
duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account
of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has
undertaken the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such
harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken
all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on
its part The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, greater must be the
amount of compensation payable for the harm caused on account of an
accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity by the enterprise.

In the case of M.C. Mehta V. Union of India . The peoples collective
conscience should wake up before the matter slips out of the hands. Each
country now must seriously strive for the maintaining of ecological
balance, otherwise tomorrow will be too late. The social activist lawyer
mr.M.C.Mehta initiated a series of cases under M.C.Mehta vs. union of
India where the Supreme Court had the opportunity to examine the
potentialities of the concept of right to live in checking violations of
environment. The first M.C.Mehta case is specifically dealing with an
activity causing direct threat to life of workers and of the general public in
and around factory engaged in the manufacture of the hazardous products.
The court pointed out that the case raised some seminal questions
concerning the true scope and ambit of art 21 and 32 of the constitution. In
meeting the questions, the court adopted a detached approach of balancing
the values of environment with those of development on the basis of it; the
court imposed certain conditions on such type of hazardous industry. The
ratio of this case is simple. It states that when science and technology are
increasingly employed in producing goods and services calculated to
improve the quality of life, there is certain element of hazard or risk
inherent in the vary of science and technology and it is not possible to
totally eliminate such hazard or risk. It is not possible to adopt a policy of
not having any chemical or other hazardous industries merely because they
pose hazard or risk of the community. If such a policy were adopted, it
would mean the end of all progress and development such industries, even
if hazardous have to be set up since they one essential to economic
development and advancement of well being of the people. Hence the
court opined that pending consideration of issue whether the caustic
chlorine plant should be directed to be restarted by the management
subject to certain stringent conditions like through examination of safety
measures by an expert committee, a personal undertaking by the chairman
of managing director for payment of compensation in case of escape of
chlorine gas resulting in death injury to the workmen or others, the
management of shriram food and fertilizers Industries should deposit Rs.
20 lacks with the court by way of security for payment of compensation to
the victims of gas leakage, displaying of the chart of effects chlorine gas
on human body and informing workman and people as to what immediate
treatment should be taken installing for timely warning to the people in the
vicinity of the factory and the constant vigilance whether the workers are
using helmets, gas marks and safety belts in caustic chlorine plant and so
on.

The second M.C.Mehta case imputes an important question whether the
claim for compensation for oleum gas can be made under act 32. The
question was answered by the court in a letter of complaint for violation of
fundamental right of an individual or a class of individuals who can not
approach the court of justice, there is no reason why the application for the
compensation which has been made for the enforcement of the
fundamental right under act 21 of the person affected by oleum gas leak
should not be entertained. The court held that the power to issue direction
under act. 32. is tantamount to power issue direction for payment of
compensation. The fourth M.C.Mehta case group of owners of tanneries
doing business on the bank of Ganga were alleged to be polluting the river.
The Supreme Court issued direction to the tanneries to set up primary
treatment plant within a period of six months. The court also directed the
central Govt., pollution control board and the district magistrate to oversee
the work. In supporting judgment justice K.N.Singh observed that, the
pollution of the river Ganga is affecting the life, health, ecology of the
Indo-Genetic Plan. He also concluded that, the closure of tenneris may
bring unemployment, loss of revenue but life, health and ecology have
greater importance to people.

In the M.C.Mehta vs. union of India , the court held on the same fact that a
person interested in protecting lives and using water flowing in the river
Ganga has the right to move to supreme court Shri. M.C.Mehta in a
subsequent petition moved the supreme court for prevention of nuisance
caused by the pollution of river Ganga in order to protect the lives of the
people who make of its water. The court referred to the Environment
(protection) Act 1986 which contains certain provisions relating to the
continue prevention and abatement of pollution of water and one
signification provisions in that Act is what contained in section 17 thereof
which provides that where an offence under that act is committed by any
department of the govt., the head of department shall be deemed to be
guilty of the offence and is liable to be punished. Ultimately it was
observed by the court that although parliament and state legislature have
enacted many laws imposing duties on the central and state boards and the
municipalities for prevention and control of pollution of water, many of
those provisions have just remained on paper without any adequate action
being taken pursuant thereto on account of the failure of authorities to
obey the statutory duties for several years the water in the river Ganga at
kanpur has become so much polluted that it no longer be used by the
people either for drinking or for bathing. The Nagar mahapalika of Kanpur
has to bear the major responsibility of the river near Kanpur city. In the
instant case the Supreme Court gave certain directions to the Kanpur
municipal corporation and the other concerned authorities in order to
control and prevent the pollution of water in the river Ganga at Kanpur.
All those directions will also apply mutatis mutandis to other municipal
corporations and municipalities. The Central Govt. was directed to include
the subject of national Environment in the textbooks of all educational
institutions. There was further direction to make people aware of the
importance of cleanliness and hazards of pollution. keep city/village clean
weeks should also be observed in this connection.

Vehicular pollution in Delhi city, in the context of Art 47 and 48 of the
Constitution came up for consideration in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India:
1998(6) SCC 60 and 1998(9) SCC 589. It was held that it was the duty of
the Government to see that the air was not contaminated by vehicular
pollution. The right to clean air also stemmed from Art 21 which referred
to right to life. Lead free petrol supply was introduced in M.C. Mehta vs.
Union of India 1998 (8) SCC 648 and phasing out old commercial vehicles
more than 15 years old was directed in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
1998(8) SCC 206.These judgments are important landmarks for the
maintenance of clean air in Delhi. Moreover in S. Jagannath v. Union of
India the Supreme Court has held that setting up of shrimp culture farms
within the prohibited areas and in ecologically fragile coastal areas has an
adverse effect on the environment, coastal ecology and economics and
hence, they cannot be permitted to operate. The B.L. Wadhera vs- Union
of India This case relates to ecology non performance of mandatory duties
of Municipal Corporation, like garbage clearance, scavenging and cleaning
Delhi city. Supreme Court held that non availability of funds, machinery,
etc. cannot be pleaded as non performance of statutory obligation.
Direction issued to scavenged and clean Delhi city everyday and also
appoint Municipal magistrates for trial of offence under Corporation Act.
Buffalo Graders Welfare Association vs- Maneka Gandhi In this case
Idgah Slaughter House of Delhi was directed to stop functioning in the city
w.e.f. 30.11.96 to stop unhygienic atmosphere in the residential locality.
M.C.Mehta vs- Union of India In this case Supreme Court held that
mining activity in the vicinity of tourist resorts of Bad Kal Lake and
Surajkund are bound to cause several impact on the ecology and directed
that mining activity should be stopped within 3 km of the tourist resort.

Pradeep Kishen vs- Union of India In this case a PIL was filed against the
order issued by the Govt. Madhya Pradesh permitting collection of tender
leaves from the forest by the local villagers/tribals. However Supreme
Court did not interfere with the said order but directed the authorities to
look to the aspect that only bonafide villager can collect tender leaves and
to take necessary steps to protect the shrinkage of forest.T.N. Goda
Varman Thiru Mulkpad vs- Union of India This matter relates to
usefulness of modern Shrimp(Prawn) farming and traditional shrimp
farming. Commercial aquaculture farming in the coastal area caused
depletion of mangrove eco system. Supreme Court held that modern
shrimp farming is violative of Environment Protection Act and cannot be
permitted. However traditional farming is pollution free and directed to
constitute High Power Authority to scrutinize each and every case.
M.C.Mehta vs- Union of India This is very famous case relating to
preservation of Tajmahal at Agra. Industries situated near the Tajmahal
Trapizium Zone (TTZ) are directed to use natural gas instead of coak or
coal as the use of the same causes serious impact on the Tajmahal and
people living in the area. Otherwise industries were directed to stop
functioning and relocate to other area.

T.N. Goda Varman Thiru Mulkpad vs- Union of India PIL was filed for
conservation of forests and disposal / utilization of illegally felled timber.
World Saviours vs- Union Of India (1998) 9 SCC 247 In this case it was
directed that state electricity connection shall not be given to any industry
without No Objection Certificate from the State Pollution Control Board.
M.C.Mehta vs- Union of India This case relates to destruction to the green
belt within 500 meters of Tajmahal caused by the musical concern by the
annitroupe. Supreme directed authorities to strictly adhere to the direction
of the Supreme Court to protect the sound, air and environmental pollution
of the Tajmahal. T.N. Goda Varman Thiru Mulkpad vs- Union of India
Writ petition was filed for relocation of wood industries and ban for timber
trade in the North Eastern States was filed . Supreme Court held that
complete ban on timber trade is not feasible or desirable and directed the
State governments of North Eastern states to notify industrial area for
location of wood based industrial units.

Church of God (Full Gospel) vs- state of Tamilnadu In this case Supreme
came down heavily on the practice of beating drums and use of loud
speaker in places of worship. It was held that no religion prescribed this
practice and observed that, In our view in the civilized society in the name
of religious activities which disturb old and infirm persons, students or
children having their sleeps in the early hours or during day time or other
perform carrying other activity cannot be permitted. It should not be
forgotten that babies in the neighborhoods are also entitled to enjoy their
natural right of sleeping in peaceful atmosphere. Aged, sick people
afflicted by psychic disturbances as well as children upto the age of six
years are considered to be sensitive to noise. Their rights are also required
to be honoured N. D. Jayal and Another vs Union of India and Others,,
Supreme Court held that, the adherence of sustainable development
principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the symbiotic balance
between the rights to environment and development. Right to environment
is a fundamental right. On the other hand right to development is also one.
Here the right to 'sustainable development' cannot be singled out.
Therefore, the concept of 'sustainable development' is to be treated an
integral part of 'life' under Article 21

Goa Foundation vs- Union of India (Decided by Supreme Court on 22-02-
05) Recently Supreme Court comprising the bench of Mr. Y.K Shabbarwal
and Mr. P.P. Naolekar passed an order on 22-02005 directing the Central
Government to issue directives to close down 218 industrial units across
the country to close down for flouting environmental norms. Need for
balance between development and preservation of ecology was again
stressed in Live Oak Resort (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Panchgani H.S. Municipal
Council With reference to vehicular pollution in Delhi and implementation
of the orders for introduction of CNG, the court passed a series of orders in
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India Smoking cigarettes in public places was
prohibited by the Supreme Court in Murli S. Deora v. Union of India
(2001) 8 SCC 765. The right to clean air was part of the right to life under
Article 21. In Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496 the
Supreme Court held that healthy environment enables people to enjoy a
quality of life which is the essence of the rights guaranteed under Article
21.

Concern for safety and well-being of wildlife in zoos came up for
consideration in a case where a tiger was skinned alive in a zoo. The
provisions of Article 48-A of the Constitution and the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 (ss.38 (a), 38 (c), 38 (h) and 38 (j)), the provisions
of the Forest Act, 1927 also were considered. (Navin M. Raheja v. Union
of India (2001) 9 SCC 762) The Supreme Court pulled up the Madhya
Pradesh State Pollution Control Board for not taking any interest and, in
fact, acting negligently in the matter of discharging its functions since
various industries were discharging pollutants in contravention of the
provisions of the laws: State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd.
(2001) 9 SCC 605. In Bittu Seghal v. Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 181
(Judgment dated 31.10.1996) the court gave a direction to the State of
Maharashtra in regard to the protection of Dahanu Taluka, regarding CRZ
notification of the Government of India dated 19.2.2001 and the Regional
Development Plan as approved by the Government of India (subject to
conditions) on 6.3.1996. The court directed the Central Government to
constitute an authority under s.3 (3) of the Environment Protection Act,
1986 to be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court and to confer on
the authority powers required to protect the region, control pollution and
issue directions under s.5 and for taking measures as stated in s.3 (2) (v) 2
(x) and (xii) of that Act. The said authority was to bear in mind the
Precautionary Principle and the Polluter

Pays Principle.
Cleaning and developing ponds which had dried up was part of the duty of
the Government under Article 21. (Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi (2001)
6 SCC 496). The Supreme Court in Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, the
Court explicitly held that:The word environment is of broad spectrum
which brings within its ambit hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance.
It is therefore, not only the duty of the State but also duty of every citizen
to maintain hygienic environment. The State, in particular has duty in that
behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled sovereign power and to forge
in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment.
Closure, shifting, re-location of polluting industries in the residential areas
of Delhi came up again in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) 9 SCC
481, 483 and 534. Protection of monuments and religious shrines came up
in Wasim Ahmed Saeed v. Union of India (2002) 9 SCC 472. The court
held that shifting of 24 licensed shops from the vicinity of the religions
shrine of Dargah of Salim Chishti in Agra as recommended by the
Archaeological Department, did not violate Article 21. In M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 356, the Supreme Court held that one of the
principles underlying environmental law is that of sustainable
development. The principle means that such development which also
sustains ecology can take place. The essential features of sustainable
development are (a) precautionary principle and (b) the polluter pays
principle.

In Vineet Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India [(1996) 1 SCC 119], the
Court took note of the continued violation of the State, as well as
industries by continuing to pollute water by discharging effluents and also
in not setting up of common effluent treatment plants. The Court held that
in the circumstances the officers were in clear contempt of court and
accepted their apology and made the violation a part of their service
record. Although the Court was very stringent in its approach to the
problem, pardoning the officers by merely recording such observation in
the service records leaves much to be desired. It is essential for the Court
to award such punishment as required so that the officers of the Board do
not succumb to pressure. The Court has successfully isolated specific
environmental law principles upon the interpretation of Indian statutes and
the Constitution, combined with a liberal view towards ensuring social
justice and the protection of human rights. The principles have often found
reflection in the Constitution in some form, and are usually justified even
when not explicitly mentioned in the concerned statute. There have also
been occasions when the judiciary has prioritized the environment over
development, when the situation demanded an immediate and specific
policy structure. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court of India in A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M.V.
Nayudu, the Court referred to the need for establishing Environmental
Courts which would have the benefit of expert advice from environmental
scientists/technically qualified persons, as part of the judicial process, after
an elaborate discussion of the views of jurists in various countries. In the
subsequent follow-up judgment in A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M.V.
Nayudu, the Supreme Court, referred to the serious differences in the
constitution of appellate authorities under plenary as well as delegated
legislation25 and pointed out that except in one State where the appellate
authority was manned by a retired High Court Judge, in other States they
were manned only by bureaucrats. These appellate authorities were not
having either judicial or environment back-up on the Bench.The need for
Environmental Courts were advocated in two earlier judgments also. One
was M.C. Mehta v. Union of India where the Supreme Court said that in as
much as environment cases involve assessment of scientific data, it was
desirable to set up environment courts on a regional basis with a
professional Judge and two experts, keeping in view the expertise required
for such adjudication. There should be an appeal to the Supreme Court
from the decision of the environment court. Again in the judgment of
Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India in which the
Supreme Court observed that Environmental Courts having civil and
criminal jurisdiction must be established to deal with the environmental
issues in a speedy manner.

The directives of the Supreme Court went to the extent of spreading
environmental awareness and literacy as well as the launching of
environmental education not only at school level, but also at the college
level. In MC Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stressed the
need for introducing such schemes,In order for the human conduct to be in
accordance with the prescription of law it is necessary that there should be
appropriate awareness about what the law requires. This should be
possible only when steps are taken in the adequate measure to make
people aware of the indispensable necessity of their conduct being oriented
in accordance with the requirements of law. The courts have attempted to
provide a balanced view of priorities while deciding environmental
matters. As India is a developing country, certain ecological sacrifices are
deemed necessary, while keeping in mind the nature of the environment in
that area, and its criticality to the community. This is in order that future
generations may benefit from policies and laws that further environmental
as well as developmental goals. This ethical mix is termed sustainable
development, and has also been recognized by the Supreme Court in the
Taj Trapezium case. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734.
(per Kuldip Singh, J.)

The decision of the Supreme Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union
of India 2000 (10) SCC 664 at p.727 has observed that sustainable
development means what type or extent of development can take place,
which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In
this context, development primarily meant material or economic progress.
Beginning with Vellore CitizensWelfare Forum v. Union of India AIR
1996 SC 2715., the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the
precautionary principle as a principle of Indian environmental law. More
recently, in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu AIR 1999 SC
812.the Court discussed the development of the precautionary principle.S.
Jagannath v. Union of India (Shrimp Culture case), AIR 1997 SC 811.
Furthermore, in the Narmada case Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of
India, AIR 2000 SC 3751., the Court explained that when there is a state of
uncertainty due to the lack of data or material about the extent of damage
or pollution likely to be caused, then, in order to maintain the ecology
balance, the burden of proof that the said balance will be maintained must
necessarily be on the industry or the unit which is likely to cause
pollution.

The Supreme Court has come to sustain a position where it calculates
environmental damages not on the basis of a claim put forward by either
party, but through an examination of the situation by the Court, keeping in
mind factors such as the deterrent nature of the award. M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India (Oleum Gas case), AIR 1987 SC 965 However, it held
recently that the power under Article 32 to award damages, or even
exemplary damages to compensate environmental harm, would not extend
to the levy of a pollution fine.M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIR 2000 SC
1997.

Conclusion:
To sum up, The Supreme Court, in its interpretation of Article 21, has


facilitated the emergence of an environmental jurisprudence in India,
while also strengthening human rights jurisprudence. There are numerous
decisions wherein the right to a clean environment, drinking water, a
pollution-free atmosphere, etc. have been given the status of inalienable
human rights and, therefore, fundamental rights of Indian citizens. The
above judgments of the Supreme Court of India will show the wide range
of cases relating to environment which came to be decided by the said
Court from time to time. The Court has been and is still monitoring a
number of cases. It will be noted that the Court constantly referred
environmental issues to experts, and the Court has been framing schemes,
issuing directions and continuously monitoring them. Some of these
judgments of the Supreme Court were given in original writ petitions filed
under Art. 32.The proposal for Environmental Courts is intended to lessen
this burden, as already stated. But that as it may, the Supreme Court has, in
the various cases referred to above, laid down the basic foundation for
environmental jurisprudence in the country..