Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2016
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to
Prof. Manjula Batra for her personal guidance, support and
encouragement which has made the completion of this Project
possible. Thank you, Sir, for your support and co-operation.
I would also like to extend my thankfulness towards the library
staff and my friends, who immensely helped me in the research
work for the project.
Regards
Samreen Khan
3rd yr. 6th sem.
Faculty of law, JMI.
2016
ABBREVIATIONS
HR
UDHR
Rights
: Human Rights
: Universal Declaration of Human
ACTS
UNESCO
Cultural Organization
Programme
UNCED
: United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development
UNDP
Programme
WSSD
Development
NEP
MEA
2016
COP
: Conference of Parties
MOP
: Meeting of Parties
PIL
WBCSD
Development
NGO
MNCs
: Multinational Corporations
OAS
OAU
ICJ
RTI
ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
I. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
Environmental governance has acquired different meanings
depending on how people perceive Governance itself. Rosseau
has
proposed
one
of
the
most
exhaustive
definitions
of
governance:
Governance refers to activities backed by shared goals that
may or may not derive from legal and formally prescribed
responsibilities and that do not necessarily rely on police powers
to overcome defiance and attain compliance. Governance, in
other words, is a more encompassing phenomenon than
government. It embraces governmental institutions, but it also
subsumes informal, non-governmental mechanisms whereby
2016
importantly
environmental
governance,
provides
2016
this
discussion
cannot
be
complete
without
and
subsequent
evolution
of
environmental
with
environmental
concerns
taking
shape
of
Ibid.
Supra 1.
Speth, James Gustave (2002): The Global Environmental Agenda: Origins and
Prospects in Esty, Daniel C. and Maria H. Ivanova, Editors. (2002): Global
Environmental Governance Options & Opportunities. Yale school of forestry &
environmental studies.
2016
Milestone
1970
1971
1971
1972
1972
1973
1974
1978
1978
1980
1987
1992
1992
1992
1994
2002
World
Summit
for
Sustainable
Johannesburg
2005
Development
in
2016
the
early
stages
of
development
of
national
gave
impetus
to
the
growth
of
international
2016
UNCED
international
represented
partial
movement.
The
links
coming
of
between
age
of
improved
national
institutional
mechanisms
have
become
bodies
established
worldwide
include
multi-
Gupta, Anil K. and Mohammad Yunus (2004): India and the WSSD (Rio + 10),
Johannesburg: Issues of national concern and international strategies. VOL. 87, NO. 1, 10
JULY 2004. CURRENT SCIENCE.
2016
Technology transfer
sustainable
development
goals,
the
day-to-day
Supra 6.
2016
rather
than
specialized
agency
established
genealogy
in
policy
pronouncements,
Ivanova, Maria (2005): Assessing UNEP as Anchor Institution for the Global
Environment: Lessons for the UNEO Debate Working Paper No. 05/01 available online at
http://www.yale.edu/gegproject/uneo-wp.pdf. Yale University. Yale Center for
Environmental Law & Policy.
I.
Human
beings
are
at
the
center
at
the
center
of
2016
Sustainable
Development Concerns:
Human
beings
are
of
concerns
for
order
to
achieve
sustainable
development,
cost-effective
measures
to
prevent
environmental degradation.
V. Economic Efficiency:
In various public actions for environmental conservation,
economic efficiency would be realized. This principle
requires that the services of environmental resources be
2016
b) Cost Minimization:
Where the environmental benefits of a course of action
cannot, for methodological or conceptual reasons, be
imputed
economic
value
(as
in
the
case
of
2016
VII. Equity:
The cardinal principle of equity or justice requires that
human beings cannot be treated differently based on
irrelevant differences between the Equity norms must be
distinguished according to the context, i.e. procedural
equity, relating to fair rules for allocation of entitlements
and obligations and end-result equity, relating to fair
outcomes in terms of distribution of entitlements and
obligations.
Each
context,
in
addition,
must
be
2016
refers
to
both
equity
in
entitlements,
and
present
environmental
redressal
mechanism
is
deter
compensate
environmentally
the
victims
of
harmful
actions,
environmental
and
damage.
deriving
from
the
principle
of
economic
2016
2016
development
situation
in
which
they
apply.
context,
if
implemented
without
considering
the
consequences.
XIII. Preventive Action:
It is preferable to prevent environmental damage from
occurring in the first place, rather than attempting to
restore
degraded
environmental
resources
after
the
damage.
XIV. Environmental Offsetting:
There is a general obligation to protect threatened or
endangered species and natural systems that are of special
importance to sustaining life, providing livelihoods, or
general well-being. If for exceptional reasons of overriding
public interest such protection cannot be provided in
particular cases, cost-effective offsetting measures must be
undertaken by the proponents of the activity. It must aim
to restore the lost environmental services produce to the
same public in question.
2016
(climate
change,
conservation
of
biodiversity,
of
the
(UNEP).
After
United
Nations
negotiations,
Environment
these
MEAs
have
Programme
their
own
policy
measures
at
the
national
level
governing
or
according
to
the
national
environmental
2016
Acts
are
In
case
driven
of
by
large
national
countries
environmental
as
India,
an
2016
in
management
of
social sector
Committees
and
Participatory
irrigation
2016
including
substantive
and
procedural
MC Mehta v Union of India & Ors, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1037; Rural Litigation
and Entitlement Kendera v State of UP, AIR 1988 SC 2187; The Environmental
Foundation Limited & Ors v The Attorney General & Ors, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
SC, Application No 128/91.
11
2016
aspects
of
environment
and
development
issues;12
Publics right to information; obligation for continuous
environmental impact assessment13
Application of the public trust doctrine in regard to natural
resources and the environment14
Approaches to judicial reasoning in environmental matters
and the importance of promoting public awareness and
environmental education at secondary and tertiary levels15
The following is intended to provide a flavour of the manner in
which judges around the world have given judicial recognition to
the Principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development.
12
MC Mehta v Kamal Nath & Ors, Supreme Court of India (1997) Supreme Court Cases 388; Juan
Antonio Oposa and Others V. The Honourable Fulgencio S. Factoran and another, G.R.No: 101083,
Supreme Court of the Philippines.
13
Kajing Tubfk & Ors v Ekran BHD & Ors, Originating Summons No. 55 (21 June 1995)
High Court Kuala Lumpur; Movement Social de Petit Camp/Valentina v Ministry of the
Environment and Quality of Life, Mauritius Environment Appeal Tribunal (Cause No.
2/94).
14
MC Mehta v Kamal Nath & Ors, Supreme Court of India (1997) Supreme Court Cases
388); corporate responsibility. and liability (Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (Bhopal
Case II) AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1480.
15
MC Mehta v Union of India & Ors, Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition Civil No 860
of 1991.
2016
the
need
to
defend
and
improve
the
human
16
International Court of Justice, 1997 General List No. 92, 25 September 1997, Case
Concerning The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project.
17
18
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera V. State Of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187.
M.C. Mehta V. Union of India and others, Air 1988 Supreme Court 1037
2016
the next to preserve nature for the full and healthful enjoyment
of its ecology.19
Access to information
In South Africa, applicants were granted the right to require
information on how the construction of a development project in
an area in which they intended to build a holiday house would
affect the environment.20 Ugandas judiciary stated that every
citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of
the State.21 From a different perspective, the Ukrainian judiciary
stated that an applicant for a project with environmental
consequences
should
announce
the
findings
of
the
state
23
19
Juan Antonio Oposa and Others V. The Honourable Fulgencio S. Factoran and another,
G.R.No: 101083, Supreme Court
20
Van Huyssteen & Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism & Others
1996 (1) SA 283 (c)
21
M.C. Mehta V. Union of India and others, Supreme Court Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 860
of 1991
2016
Public participation
In Chile, the judiciary upheld the standing of a party that
challenged the validity of a resolution that admitted the
technical viability of a project thataccording to the same
resolutiondid not fulfill the requirements for its environmental
viability.24
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh granted legal standing to the
representative of an environmental association that challenged
the implementation of a flood control plan. The original court
had dismissed the petition by establishing that the petitioner
was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of the
Constitution. However, on appeal, standing was granted by
treating the association as a person aggrieved within the
meaning the Constitution because the cause it bona fide
espouses,
both
in
respect
of
fundamental
rights
and
archaeological
site
and
sought
orders
to
stop
the
Antonio Horvath Kiss and others v National Commission for the Environment, Supreme
Court March 19 1997
25
2016
legal
framework
and
other
international
Prakash Mani Sharma and others on behalf of Pro Public V. Honorable Prime Minister Girija
Prasad Koirala and others, 312 NRL 1997, Supreme Court of Nepal
27
Asociacin Coordinadora de Usuarios, Consumidores y Contribuyentes V. ENRE EDESUR, Camara Federal de Apelaciones de La Plata, Sala 2a, July 8, 2003
28
Ms. Shehla Zia And Others V. Wapda, Human Rights Case No: 15-K of 1992, Supreme
Court
2016
become
international
customary
law,
the
Court
magistrates
court
in
Australia
held
that
the
of
greenhouse
impacts
above
development
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, Air 1996 SC
2715
31
Leach V. National Parks And Wildlife Service And Shoalhaven City Council, Land and
Environment Court of New South Wales, 81 Lgera 270 (1993)
32
Greenpeace Australia Ltd V. Redbank Power Company Pty. Ltd. and Singleton Council,
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, 86 Lgera 143 (1994)
2016
Right to Information
Principle 10 of Agenda 21 of Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development underlined the importance of access to
information in managing environmental issues:
..At the national level, each individual shall have
appropriate access to information concerning the
environment
that
is
held
by
public
authorities,
and
encourage
public
awareness
and
access
to
judicial
and
administrative
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, Air 1996
SC2715
34
M.C. Mehta V. Kamal Nath and others, Supreme Court of India, (1997)1 Supreme Court
Cases 388
2016
for
information,
the
giving
of
false
Suo
moto
disclosure
of
various
categories
of
information.
In particular, following provisions of the Act will facilitate
environmental governance:36
35
MKSS (2005): MKSS on new Right to Information Act. Circulated on Jivika Listserv
(jivika@yahoogroups.com)
36
www.freedominfo.org, 2005
2016
accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its
functions;
More importantly, the act also prescribes proactive steps to be
taken by various authorities/agencies to disclose by its own
initiatives information that may be of interest to the citizens:
(1) Every public authority shall
(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in
a manner and form which facilitates the right to information
under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate
to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to
availability of resources, computerized and connected through a
network all over the country on different systems so that access
to such records is facilitated;
(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the
enactment of this Act,i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
2016
vii.
the
particulars
of
any
arrangement
that
exists
for
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
particulars
of
recipients
of
concessions,
permits
or
xv.
xvi.
2016
xvii.
such
other
information
as
may
be
prescribed;
and
at
regular
intervals
through
various
means
of
2016
CONCLUSION
Judicial decisions are prone to a less efficacious enforcement in
the area of corporate environmental management. When Courts
by way of remedial action prescribe compensation to be paid,
very few corporate bodies actually end up paying the amount.
This is due to the poor enforcement, low inclination and most
often, the inability to pay these enormous sums. Such a situation
leaves the people affected helpless, with no remedy. It also leads
to instances of the concerned Government being directed to pay
the compensation in certain cases, such as the Union Carbide.
This only means an additional burden on the taxpayers
indirectly. Very often, the errant corporation escapes with little
or no liability. It is also seen that most cases invo1ving
environmental mismanagement by large corporations involve
2016
which
only
disadvantage
the
affected
parties.
2016
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES REFERRED
1. Boyer, Brook (2001): Institutional Coordination, Multistakeholder Participation and the Implementation of MEAs
National Experiences of Malaysia and Thailand. Paper
prepared for the Regional Consultation / Workshop on
Inter-linkages, Kuala Lumpur, 26-27 February 2001. United
Nations University
2. Gupta, Anil K. and Mohammad Yunus (2004): India and the
WSSD (Rio + 10), Johannesburg: Issues of national
concern and international strategies. VOL. 87, NO. 1, 10
JULY 2004. CURRENT SCIENCE.
3. Harashima, Yohei (2000): Research Note Environmental
Governance in Selected Asian Developing Countries.
International Review for Environmental Strategies Vol.1,
No.1, pp. 193 207, 2000 Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies.
4. Ivanova, Maria (2005): Assessing UNEP as Anchor
Institution for the Global Environment: Lessons for the
UNEO Debate Working Paper No. 05/01 available online at
http://www.yale.edu/gegproject/uneo-wp.pdf.
Yale
University. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy
5. MKSS (2005): MKSS on new Right to Information Act.
Circulated on Jivika Listserv (jivika@yahoogroups.com)
2016
WRI 2003
11.
Zarsky,
Lyuba
(1998):
A
Human
Rights/Environmental Ombudsperson: From Concept To
Design:
Creating
An
International
Environmental
Ombudsperson. Case Study Lessons and Design
Recommendations. The Earth Council. San Jos, Costa
CASES REFERRED
1. Antonio Horvath Kiss and others v National Commission
for the Environment, Supreme Court March 19 1997
2. Asociacin Coordinadora de Usuarios, Consumidores y
Contribuyentes V. ENRE - EDESUR, Camara Federal de
Apelaciones de La Plata, Sala 2a, July 8, 2003
3. Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (Bhopal Case II) AIR
1990 Supreme Court 1480
4. Claudia Sampedro y Hctor A. Surez v Ministry of the
Environment and Direction of Stupefacient Substances,
Administrative Tribunal of Cundinamarca, June 13 2003
2016
2016
16.
Movement Social de Petit Camp/Valentina v Ministry
of the Environment and Quality of Life, Mauritius
Environment Appeal Tribunal (Cause No. 2/94)
17.
Ms. Shehla Zia And Others V. Wapda, Human Rights
Case No: 15-K of 1992, Supreme Court
18.
Prakash Mani Sharma and others on behalf of Pro
Public V. Honorable Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala
and others, 312 NRL 1997, Supreme Court of Nepal
19.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera v State of
UP, AIR 1988 SC 2187;
20.
The Environmental Foundation Limited & Ors v The
Attorney General & Ors,
21.
Supreme Court of Sri Lanka SC, Application No
128/91
22.
Van Huyssteen & Others v Minister of Environmental
Affairs & Tourism & Others 1996 (1) SA 283 (c)
23.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India,
Supreme Court of India, Air 1996 SC 2715