Some important cases

14/08/1992

Sanitation in Ratlam: In a landmark judgement in 1980, the Supreme Court explicitly recognised
the impact of a deteriorating urban environment on the poor. It linked basic public health facilities to
human rights and compelled the municipality to provide proper sanitation and drainage. However,
according to numerous reports, little has changed in Ratlam today.

Doon valley quarrying: In 1987, the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, on the behalf of
residents of the Doon valley, filed a case in the Supreme Court against limestone quarrying. This
case was the first requiring the Supreme Court to balance environmental and ecological integrity
against industrial demands on forest resources. The courts directed the authorities to stop quarrying
in the Mussoorie hills, but today, mining continues unchecked in the interior valleys.

Gas leak in Shriram factory: In the historic case of the oleum gas leak from the Shriram Food and
Fertiliser factory in Delhi, in 1986, the Supreme Court ordered the management to pay
compensation to the victims of the gas leak. 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.

Construction in Silent Valley: In 1980, the Kerala High Court threw out a writ filed by the Society for
the Protection of the Silent Valley seeking a ban on construction of a hydro-electric project in the
valley. However, despite an unfavourable judgement, active lobbying and grassroots action by
environmentalists stopped the project.

Polluting the Ganga: In 1985, activist-advocate M C Mehta filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court
to highlight the pollution of the Ganga by industries and municipalities located on its banks. In a
historic judgement in 1987, the court ordered the closure of a number of polluting tanneries near
Kanpur. Justice E S Venkataramiah, in his judgement, observed: "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."

Pollution in Bichhri: Effluents from an H-acid factory in Bichhri village in Rajasthan has polluted the
ground water of almost 60 wells, destroying crops and orchards. A case was filed in the Supreme
Court by the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action in October 1989. Despite court orders in March
1990 to remove the sludge from the factory, not only does the sludge still pollute Bichhri's drinking
water, but no compensation has been paid to the residents either.

Mining in Sariska: A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 1991 by the Tarun Bharat
Sangh to stop mining in the Sariska wildlife sanctuary. The court banned mining in the sanctuary, but
mining continues nevertheless.
The Indian Heritage and Culture has an intimate relation with the conservation
and protection of the environment. The Indian State has also enshrined it in the
Constitution which requires both the State and the Citizen to protect and
improve the environment. The Environment Act, 1986 is one of those acts
which extends to the whole of India without any exception.

Constitutional Interpretation of Environment:-

The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India added Article 48A and 51A(g)
which comes under the Directive Principle of State Policy and the Fundamental
Duties respectively.The Supreme Court of India in Sachidanand Pandey v. State
of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109 stated that the Court is bound to bear in mind
the above said articles whenever a case related to Environmental problem is
brought to the Court.
The Article 48A states: The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.
The Article 51A(g) imposes a duty upon every citizen of India to protect and
improve the natural environment and confers right to come before the Court for
appropriate relief.
The Apex Court in Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 AP
171 held that the environmental pollution and spoliation which is slowly poisoning
and polluting the atmosphere should also be regarded as amounting to violation
of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Public Liability and Public Nuisance:-

M.C. Mehta and Anr. Etc vs. Union Of India and Ors. Etc 1986 SCR (1)
312 discusses the concept of Public Liability. This case is also known as Oleum
Leakage Case. It is a landmark judgment in which the principle of Absolute
Liability was laid down by the Supreme Court of India. The Court held that the
permission for carrying out any hazardous industry very close to the human
habitation could not be given and the industry was relocated.
 The instant case evolved the Deep Pocket Principle. This judgment guided the
Parliament to add a new chapter to the Factory Act, 1948. The Public Liability Act
was passed and the policy for the Abatement of Pollution Control was also
established.
When the Directive Principles of State Policy has clear statutory expressions then
the Court will not allow Municipal Government to make fun of the Statutes by
sitting idly. It was decided by the Supreme Court in the Municipal Corporation,
Ratlam vs. Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622. The plea of lack of fund will be poor
alibi when people in misery cry for justice. The office in charge and even the
elected representatives will have to face a penalty if they violate the constitutional
and other statutory directives.

Sustainable Development
The Bench of Justices PN Bhagwati and Ranganath Mishra in Rural Litigation
and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 SC
2187 introduced the concept of Sustainable Development.An NGO named
RLEK filed a case against limestone quarrying in the valley in 1987.
It was stated that the permanent assets of mankind are not to be exhausted in
one generation. The natural resources should be used with requisite attention and
care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Justice Jeevan Reddy in the landmark judgment of Indian Council for Enviro-
Legal Action vs. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1502 held that the financial costs of
preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the
undertakings which cause the pollution by adopting the Polluter Pays Principle.
The Court set a time limit for the coastal states to formulate coastal management
plans and banned industrial or construction activity within 500 metres of the High
Tide Line.
Water Pollution
The writ petition filed by the activist advocate M.C. Mehta in the Supreme Court
highlighted the pollution of the Ganga river by the hazardous industries located on
its banks. Justice ES Venkataramiah gave a historic judgement in M.C. Mehta
vs. Union of India AIR 1988 SCR (2) 538 ordering the closure of a number of
polluting tanneries near Kanpur.

In this judgment it was observed that just like an industry which cannot pay
minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot
setup a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in
existence.

Animal Welfare
The Honble Supreme Court in prohibited Jallikattu and other animal races and
fights. It was observed that the Bulls cannot be performing animals in the case of
Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraj and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.
The court alluded to the section 3 and section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 and declared that animal fights incited by humans are illegal,
even those carried out under the guise of tradition and culture. The Court listed
various recommendations and overhauled the penalties and punishment in the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to function effectively.

Air Pollution
The pride of India and one of the wonders of the world i.e., Taj Mahal, was facing
threat due to high toxic emissions from Mathura Refineries, Iron Foundries, Glass
and other chemical industries. The acid rain was a serious threat to the Taj Mahal
an 255 other historic monuments within the Taj Trapezium.
The Apex Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) AIR
1987 delivered its historic judgment in 1996 giving various directions including
 banning the use of coal and cake and directing the industries to Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG).

Environmental Awareness and Education Case

The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India WP 860/1991 ordered the
Cinema theatres all over the country to exhibit two slides free of cost on
environment in each show. Their licenses will be cancelled if they fail to do so.
The Television network in the country will give 5 to 7 minutes to televise
programmes on environment apart from giving a regular weekly programme on
environment.
Environment has become a compulsory subject up to 12th standard from
academic session 1992 and University Grants Commission will also introduce this
subject in higher classes in different Universities.

Wildlife and Forest Protection Case

The livelihood of forest dwellers in the Nilgiri region of Tamil Nadu was affected
by the destruction of forests. The Supreme Court in TN Godavarman
Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. passed a series of directions since
1995, till the final judgment in 2014.
The Apex Court decided to set up a Compensatory Afforestation Funds
Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) to monitor the afforestation efforts,
to oversee th compensation who suffered on account of deforestation, and to
accelerate activities for preservation of natural forests.
A writ petition was filed by the Tarun Bharat Sangh in the Supreme Court to stop
mining activities in the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary. The Court in the case of The
Tarun Bharat Sangh vs. Union of India and Ors. (1991) banned all the mining
activities in the Sanctuary.

Public Trust and Right to Life

 The Bench of Justices Kuldip Singh and Sagir Ahmed held that the Government
violated the Doctrine of Public Trust in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors.
(1996). The Himachal Pradesh State Government had leased out a protected
forest area on the bank of river Beas to motels, for commercial purposes.
In 1996, the Supreme Court passed a judgment that would hold the State more
responsible for maintaining natural resources.
The Right to Pollution Free Environment was declared to be a part of Right to Life
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of Subhash Kumar vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. (1991). Right to Life is a Fundamental Right which
includes the Right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of
life.

The judiciary has played a predominant role in ensuring that environmental practices are not just
restricted to the law in paper, and have enforced and declared some major decisions that have come a
long way in saving the environment. Though there are allegations that despite landmark judicial
pronouncements, the executive and lack of will to save the environment has dampened the spirits of the
judicial activism, it must be acknowledged that they have also been phenomenal in changing the course
of environment destruction. The establishment of National Green Tribunals in 2010, and their active take
on environmental issues have also added to such judicial gusto. The landmark cases have been
categorised and listed as such:
A.Mining and Quarrying
i. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v State of UP AIR 1987 SC 2187
ii. T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India 2006 (14) SCALE 87

B.Public liability
i. Mr. M.C Mehta & Anr. Etc v. Union of India & Ors. Etc 1986 SCR (1) 312

C.Public nuisance
i. Municipal Council, Ratlam v Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622.

D.Water Pollution:
 i. A.P Pollution Control Board v Prof. M.V Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors (2000) Supp 5 SCR 249
ii. Indian Council for Envirolegal Action v Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1502
iii. Vineet Kumar Mathur v Union of India (1996) 1 SCC 119

E.Sustainable Development :
i. Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India 2000 (10) SCC 664.

F.Constitutional Interpretation of Environment

i. Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109
ii. Damodar Rao v. S.O Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 AP 171

G.Forest Conservation
i. Ambica Quarry Works v State of Gujarat and others 1987 AIR 1073

H.Wildlife protection
i. State of Bihar v Murad Ali Khan AIR 1989 SC 1

I.Coastal Zone Regulation

i. Maria Filomena Furtado & Others v Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Others Appeal No. 33 of
2014 (NGT Western Zone Bench)
ii. Wilfred J.Anr v MoEF & Others Appeal No. 14 of 2014 (NGT Principal Bench)

J.Environmental Impact Assessment

i. Sunil Kumar Chugh v Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi Appeal No.66 of 2014
ii. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. V. Union of India 2013 SCW 3231
iii. Samata and Forum of Sustainable Development v Union of India & Others (1981] 2 SCR 1

K.Public hearing/Consultation
i. Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta Sangathan and Another v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Others
NEAA No. 26 of 2009 Appeal no.3/2011 (T)

L.Hazardous Waste Material

i. Research Foundation For Science v Union of India and Others (2012) 7 SCC 764
 M.Air Pollution
i. MC Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) AIR 1987 Kant 82
ii. MC Mehta v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 356 ( CNG case)

N.Animal Welfare
i. Animal Welfare Board of India v A.Nagaraja & Ors (2014) 7 SCC 547