The Indian Forest Act, 1927 was largely based on previous Indian Forest Acts implemented

under the British. The Iirst and most Iamous was the Indian Forest Act oI 1878. Both the 1878
act and the 1927 one sought to consolidate and reserve the areas having Iorest cover, or
signiIicant wildliIe, to regulate movement and transit oI Iorest produce, and duty leviable on
timber and other Iorest produce. It also deIines the procedure to be Iollowed Ior declaring an area
to be a Reserved Forest, a Protected Forest or a Village Forest. It deIines what is a Iorest
oIIence, what are the acts prohibited inside a Reserved Forest, and penalties leviable on violation
oI the provisions oI the Act.
Contents
|hide|
O 1 Reserved Forest
O 2 Protected Forest
O Village Forest
O See also
O ReIerences
edit] Reserved Forest
Reserved Forest is an area or mass oI land duly notiIied under section 20 oI the Indian Forest
Act, 1927 |Act 16 oI 1927| or under the reservation provisions oI the Forest acts oI the State
Governments oI the Indian Union. The manner in which a Reserved Forest, shortly written as
RF, has to be constituted is described in section to 20 oI the Act. It is within power oI a State
Government to issue a preliminary notiIication under section oI the Act declaring that it has
been decided to constitute such land, as speciIied in a Schedule with details oI its location, area
and boundary description, into a Reserved Forest. such a notiIication also appoints an oIIicer oI
the State Government, normally the Deputy Commissioner oI the concernned district, as Forest
Settlement OIIicer. The Forest Settlement OIIicer Iixes a period not less than three months, to
hear the claims and objections oI every person having or claiming any rights over the land which
is so notiIied to be reserved. He conducts inquiries into the claims oI rights, and may reject or
accept the same. He is empowered even to acquire land over which right is claimed. For rights
other than that oI right oI way, right oI pasture, right to Iorest produce, or right to a water course,
the Forest Settlement OIIicer may exclude such land in whole or in part, or come to an
agreement with the owner Ior surrender oI his rights, or proceed to acquire such land in the
manner prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 189 |Act 1 oI 189|. Once the Forest
Settlement OIIicer settles all the rights either by admitting them or rejecting them, as per the
provisions oI the Act, and has heard appeals, iI any, and settled the same, all the rights with the
said piece oI land |boundaries oI which might have been altered or modiIied during the
settlement process| vest with the State Government. ThereaIter, the State Government issues
notiIication under section 20 oI the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring that piece oI land to be a
Reserved Forest.
edit] Protected Forest
Protected Forest is an area or mass oI land, which is not a reserved Iorest, and over which the
Government has property rights, declared to be so by a State Government under the provisions oI
the section 29 oI the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It does not require the long and tedious process oI
settlement, as in case oI declaration oI a reserved Iorest. However, iI such a declaration inIringes
upon a person's rights, the Government may cause an inquiry into the same; but pending such
inquiries, the declaration cannot abridge or aIIect such rights oI persons or communities. Further,
in a protected Iorest, the Government may issue notiIications declaring certain trees to be
reserved, or suspend private rights, iI any, Ior a period not exceeding 0 years, or prohibit
quarrying, removal oI any Iorest produce, or breaking oI land etc.
edit] Village Forest
Village Forest is constituted under section 28 oI the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Government
may assign to any village community the rights over a land which may be a part oI a reserved
Iorest Ior use oI the community. Usually, Iorested community lands are constituted into Village
Grazing Reserve |VGR|. Parcels oI land so notiIied are marked on the settlement revenue maps
oI the villages.




Role of Supreme Court in Environment Protection
by ruchiagarwal on December 7, 2010
The 1990`s may be termed as 'The Green Decade , since environmental protection is the big
issue oI the decade and ranks high among people`s priorities Ior the 1990`s.Global warming ,the
destruction oI ozone layer, acid rain, deIorestation, overpopulation, and toxic waste are all global
issues which require an appropriate global response. The issue oI environmental protection is big
in terms oI the range oI problems and issues-air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, waste
disposal, radioactivity, pesticides, deIorestation, conservation oI wild liIe, etc.
MLANING CI LNVICkNMLN1
1he word envlronmenL" relaLes Lo surroundlngs lL lncludes vlrLually anyLhlng lndeed LlnsLeln once
remarked 1he envlronmenL ls everyLhlng LhaL ls noL me" We can also deflne "envlronmenL" as
anyLhlng whlch may be LreaLed as coverlng Lhe physlcal surroundlngs LhaL are common Lo all of us
lncludlng alr space waLers land planLs and wlld llfe
1he currenL Lrends and pro[ecLlons of Lhe key envlronmenLal varlables demonsLraLe LhaL Lhe raLe of
change of Lhe varlables value has lncreased sharply Some of Lhose key varlables are 1)opulaLlon
CrowLh2) Lnergy ConsumpLlon3) CllmaLe Change4) Czone uepleLlon3) loresL uegradaLlon6) WaLer
Supplles7) llsh SLock and8) 8lodlverslLy
CNL1 CI LNVICkNMLN1AL kC1L1ICN
1he envlronmenL has been deflned as LhaL ouLer physlcal and blologlcal sysLem ln whlch man and oLher
organlsms llve as a whole lL lncludes of many lnLeracLlng componenLs 1hese componenLs are lLs
rocks mlnerals solls and waLers lLs lands and Lhelr presenL and poLenLlal vegeLaLlon lLs anlmal llfe and
poLenLlal for llvesLock husbandry and lLs cllmaLes" 1here ls a close relaLlonshlp beLween man and Lhe
envlronmenL PlsLory ls a wlLness Lo Lhe facL LhaL Lhe man has been endlessly sLruggllng conLlnuously Lo
manage hls envlronmenL so as Lo lmprove hls well belng 1hls capaclLy of Lhe man lncreased
conslderably followlng Lhe lndusLrlal sclenLlflc and Lechnologlcal revoluLlons 1he spread of dlseases
such as Lhe lnsecL rodenL waLer and food borne lnfecLlons whlch aL one Llme could noL be aLLrlbuLed
Lo Lhe maln causes of deaLh morbldlLy has been pracLlcally conLrolled All Lhls has been done wlLhouL
affecLlng Lhe naLural envlronmenL surroundlng Lhe man 8uL as Lhe Llme passed new problems sLarLed
comlng Lo Lhe forefronL and resulLed ln dlsbalanclng Lhe naLure lL was aL Lhls Llme LhaL Lhls background
helped Lhe slgnlng of Lhe SLockholm ueclaraLlon of 1972 whlch for Lhe flrsL Llme drew Lhe aLLenLlon of
Lhe world communlLy for preservaLlon and proLecLlon of human envlronmenL
1oday we are concerned wlLh a dlfferenL klnd of LhreaL LhaL lurks on our envlronmenL 1hls LhreaL ls Lhe
dlrecL resulL of masslve lndusLrlallzaLlon mechanlzaLlon moLorlzaLlon and chemlcallsaLlon of
agrlculLure 1hese processes have resulLed ln polsonlng Lhe alr Lhe rlvers and Lhe soll lLself 1hls noL only
endangers human belngs and anlmal llfe buL also serlously affecLs vegeLaLlon on earLh 1oday clLles are
noL only plagued wlLh smoke gases smog radlaLlon buL equally Lhe rlvers and lakes ln Lhe world are so
alarmlngly polluLed LhaL Lhese have rendered Lhe quallLy of waLer unflL for human consumpLlon and
have also affecLed aquaLlc llfe 1he excesslve use of arLlflclal ferLlllzers polsonous sprays lnsecLlcldes
eLc have noL only conLamlnaLed and spollL Lhe quallLy of soll buL have robbed vegeLables frulLs and
gralns of llfe susLalnlng mlnerals and vlLamlns
lndlscrlmlnaLely cuLLlng foresLs denudaLlng lands desLroylng vegeLaLlon ls resulLlng ln changed weaLher
condlLlons causlng droughLs floods and exLlncLlon of rare specles of planLs anlmals and blrds 8uLhless
exLracLlng of mlnerals and lndlscrlmlnaLely processlng ores ls along wlLh Lhelr depleLlon causlng alr and
waLer polluLlon Lven Lhe Czone layer" ls belng damaged LhaL ls a vlLal proLecLlve cover of LarLh
&ICIAL REMEIES FOR ENVIRONMENT POLL&TION
1he remedles avallable ln lndla for envlronmenLal polluLlon comprlse of sLaLuLory as well as common
law remedles 1he Lerm common law" ls derlved from Lhe laLln word lex communls 1he common law ls
force ln lndla under ArLlcle 372 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon of lndla 1he common law remedles avallable for
envlronmenLal polluLlon are nulsance Lrespass negllgence and sLrlcL llablllLy 1he sLaLuLory remedles
lncludes ClLlzen's sulL eg an acLlon broughL under secLlon 19 of Lhe LnvlronmenLal (roLecLlon) AcL
1986 an acLlon under secLlon 133 Crlmlnal rocedure Code 1973 for publlc nulsance covered wlLh Lhe
framework of secLlon 268 lndlan enal Code1860and an acLlon broughL by fllllng a wrlL peLlLlon under
ArLlcle 32 ln Lhe Supreme CourL of lndla or under ArLlcle 226 ln Lhe Plgh CourL
Common Law & Statutory Remedies
amage: Damages reIer to pecuniary compensation Ior a tortuous act, but it is not Iound in India
because the damages awarded Ior tortuous acts here are too low and have no deterrent eIIect on
the polluter. Thus the award oI nominal damages deIeat the basis and the objective underlying
the 'damage theory which is to deter the wrongdoer.
In contrast to the above mentioned position the approach oI the Indian Judiciary has undergone a
change recently. In Shriram Gas Leak case, involving a leakage oI Oleum gas which resulted in
substantial environmental harm to the citizens oI Delhi, the Apex court held that the quantum oI
damages awarded must be proportionate to the magnitude and capacity oI the polluter to pay.
However, the Apex Court has deviated Irom this test in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case wherein
the court awarded U.S. $70 million to the Bhopal gas victims which was Iar below the
magnitude and the capacity oI the polluter, Union Carbide.
Injunction: The grant oI injunction may require a polluter to reIrain Irom doing a particular
thing or to do a particular thing. Injunction may be temporary or perpetual injunction. Section 9
$ 9 along with Order 9 oI the Civil Procedure Code,1908 deal with grant oI temporary
injunction. Except this grounds temporary injunction can also be granted by the court Ior any
other reason, on the existence oI three conditions: prima Iacie case, likelihood oI irreparable
injury, the balance oI convenience in Iavour oI the grant oI injunction. The grant oI perpetual
injunction is governed by Sec.7 to 2 on the SpeciIic RelieI Act, 196. The purpose is restrain
the polluter indeIinitely Irom resorting to polluting activity.
Nuisance: Nuisance means anything which annoys, hurts or that which is oIIensive. Nuisance
may be in the Iorm oI oIIensive smells, noise, air, or water pollution. The common law oI
nuisance is concerned with the unlawIul interIering with the persons use or enjoyment oI land or
oI some right over, or in connection with it. Nuisance is oI two types:
Private Nuisance- It is a substantial and unreasonable interIerence with the use and enjoyment oI
one`s land.
ubllc nulsance lL ls an unreasonable lnLerference wlLh a general rlghL of Lhe publlc
Trespass: It means intentional or negligent direct interIerence with personal or proprietary rights
without lawIul excuses. The two essential requirements Ior trespass are:
1) There must be intentional or negligent interIerence with personal or proprietary rights.
2) The interIerence with the personal or proprietary rights must be direct rather than
consequential.
Cne of Lhe maln advanLages of brlnglng an acLlon ln Lrespass ls LhaL Lhere ls no need Lo show damage
1respass ls acLlonable per se Lherefore all LhaL needs Lo be shown ls some lnLerference Whereas mosL
envlronmenLal polluLlon cases lnvolve some form of damage Lhls acLlonablllLy per se enables an
ln[uncLlon Lo be obLalned far more easlly
Negligence: The law oI negligence is a Iault based system. In order to succeed in negligence
there has to be some Iault on behalI oI the deIendant. The three main principles oI negligence are
that the plaintiII must establish that (a) the duty oI care is owed by the deIendant to the plaintiII :
(b) that the deIendant has breached that duty ; and (c) that there has been Ioreseeable damage
resulting Irom the breach.
Strict Liability: The rule enunciated in Rylands v. Fletcher by Blackburn J. is that the person
who Ior his own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to be a
mischieI, iI it escapes, must keep it as its peril, and iI he does not do so is prima Iacie answerable
Ior all the damage which is the natural consequence oI its escape. The doctrine oI strict liability
has considerable utility in environmental pollution cases especially cases dealing with the harm
caused by the leakage oI hazardous substances.The Supreme Court oI India has, however,
developed the principle oI absolute liability Ior enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently
dangerous activities in well known Shriram Gas Leak case where the harm resulted Irom the
hazardous activity oI the Shriram unit. The Shriram enterprise was held absolutely liable to
compensate the harm.
THE CONSTIT&TIONAL ASPECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Environmental protection has Iound a special mention in the Indian Constitution. The
Constitution being the Iundamental law oI the land has a binding Iorce on citizens, non-citizens
as well as the state. The Iundamental rights and the Directive Principles oI state policy underline
our national commitment to protect and improve the environment. The interpretation given to
Article 21 oI the Constitution has added new dimension to the quality oI liIe and the eIIect oI
environment relating thereto.
istribution of Legislative Powers: The constitution under Article 26 provides Ior division oI
powers between the Union and the States. Part XIII oI the Constitution contains provisions
governing the legislative and administrative relations between the Union and the States. The
parliament and the legislatures oI any state have exclusive power to make laws with respect to
the matters contained in List I (Union List) and List II (State List) in the VIIth Schedule oI the
Constitution respectively.In addition to this, the Union and the State also enjoy concurrent
powers to make laws on any subject enumerated in List III (Concurrent List) oI the Schedule.
The Constitution Forty- Second Amendment: It was Ior the Iirst time, that the Constitution
(Forty Second Amendment)Act,1976 incorporated Article 8-A into the Constitution. The
provision reads as Iollows: 'The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment
and to saIeguard the Iorest and wildliIe oI the country.The Amendment also inserted Part VI-A
in the constitution enum- erating Iundamental duties oI the citizens under Article 1-A (g) which
reads as :It shall be duty oI every citizen oI India to protect and improve the natural
environment including Iorests, lakes,, and wildliIe and to have compassion Ior living creature. It
also inserted entry 17-A in List III just aIter entry 17 which provided Ior Iorest.Similarly, the
subject oI protection oI wild animals and birds was also transIerred Irom List II , entry 20 and
incorporated in List III entry 17-B.
The irective Principles of State Policy: Part IV oI the Indian Constitution lays down certain
Iundamental principles oI State Policy. In this connection it is worthwhile to point out that in
several environmental cases the courts have been guided by the language oI Article 8-A.In
Sachida Nand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court , relying upon the
Constitutional directives concerning protection oI environment observed 'whenever a problem oI
ecology is brought beIore the court , the court is bound to bear in mind Article 8-A and Article
1-A(g).When the court is called upon to give eIIect to the Directive Principles and the
Fundamental Duties , the court is not to shrug its shoulder and say that priorities are a matter oI
policy and so it is a matter oI the policy making authority.
Article 253 and Environmental Legislation: Article 2 oI the Constitution gives power to
Parliament to make laws implementing international obligation oI the country as well as any
decision taken at an international conIerence, association or other body. The provision reads,
Notwithstanding anything in the Ioregoing provision oI this chapter, parliament has power to
make any law Ior the whole or any part oI the territory oI India Ior implementing any treaty ,
agreement or convention with any other country or any decision made at any international
conIerence ,association or other body.The authority vested in Parliament under the provisions
contained in Article 2 has been exercised by it in enacting the Air (Prevention and Control)
Act, 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Fundamental Rights vis--vis Environment: Part III oI the Constitution oI India incorporates
Iundamental rights which have been made judicially enIorceable. An attempt here is being made
to examine this perspective in the context oI environmental protection.
(a) The Right to a wholesome Environment: It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi`s case that iI a law is enacted by a legislature which touches upon the liIe and
liberty oI a person and curtails it, then it is mandatory requirement that the procedure established
by it Ior curtailing the liberty oI a person must be reasonable, Iair and just.Environmental
pollution which spoils the atmosphere and thereby eIIects the liIe and health oI the person has
been regarded as amounting to violation oI Article 21 oI the Constitution.
In T. amodar Rao`s case which related to stop the LiIe Insurance Corporation and the Income
Tax Department Irom building residential house in a recreational zone, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court held ,it would be reasonable to hold that the enjoyment oI liIe and its attainment and
IulIillment guaranteed by Article 21 oI the Constitution embraces the protection and preservation
oI nature`s giIts without which liIe cannot be enjoyed.The slow poisoning by the polluted
atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoliation should be regarded as amounting
to violation oI Article 21 oI the Constitution. The court held that the attempt oI the respondents
to build houses in this area is contrary to law and also contrary to Article 21 oI the Constitution.
(b) The Right to Livelihood: The right to livelihood is implicit in the constitutional guarantee oI
right to liIe enshrined in Article 21 oI the Constitution. The provision has served as an eIIective
check governmental action which tend to aIIect the environment and disrupt the normal liIe style
oI the poor people. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation the court held:Deprive a
person oI his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him oI his right to livelihood except
according to just and Iair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as
oIIending the right to liIe conIerred by Article 21.
(c) The Right to Equality :- Article 1 oI the Constitution states that 'the state shall not deny to
any person equality beIore the law or the equal protection oI laws within the territory oI India,
guarantees the right to equality. This article is the principle instrument to strike at the
arbitrariness oI an action should it involve a negation oI the right to equality. The right to
equality as enshrined in Article 1 oI the Constitution may be inIringed by government decisions
which may have impact on the environment, particularly in cases, where permissions are
arbitrarily granted, Ior instance, Ior construction that are in contradistinction oI development
regulation or Ior mining consequences. Thus, we Iind that Article 1 can be used as a potent
weapon against governmental decisions threatening the environment.
(d) Freedom of trade and environment :- Article 19 (1)(g) gives to all citizens a right to
practice any proIession or to carry on any occupation, trade and business. The question which
needs to be answered here is : Whether a person, agency or industry has a right to carry on a
business or trade in a manner which is causing an injury to the public and posing health hazard to
the society at large? This question came Ior consideration in the case oI Abhilash Textiles v.
Rajkot Municipal Corporation.The court held that the petitioners cannot be permitted to the
proIits at the cost oI the public health as they had no right to carry on their business without
complying with the requirement oI the law.
(e) Constitutional Remedies: Art.2 and 226 oI the Constitution oI India conIer power to the
Supreme Court and High Court respectively to issue writs in the nature oI habeas corpus,
mandamus, certiorari and prohibition are generally resorted to in environmental matters.
The writ mandamus is issued against an administrative, quasi judicial or judicial authority. It is
issued by a court to command action by a public authority which is vested with the power and
wrongIully reIuses to exercise it or to undo what has been done in contravention oI a statute. The
writs oI certiorari and prohibition are designed to restrain public authorities Irom acting in excess
oI their authority. Certiorari is an order to an inIerior court or quasi-judicial body to transmit the
record oI pending proceedings to superior court Ior review. The writ oI prohibition prevents a
lower court or tribunal Irom assuming a jurisdiction which it does not possess. The main
distinction between certiorari and prohibition is that they are issued at diIIerent stages oI the
proceedings. The writ oI prohibition is issued when the matter is pending beIore an authority to
prohibit the concerned authority Irom proceeding any Iurther with the matter whereas certiorari
iI issued only aIter the concerned authority has decided a question beIore it. For instance, writ oI
certiorari will lie against a municipality that considers a builder`s application and permits
construction contrary to development rules such as height restriction, or that disregards zoning
requirements and wrongly sanctions an oIIice building in an area reserved Ior a garden.
Certiorari would also lie against pollution control board that considers the application oI an
industry and wrongly permits it to discharge eIIluents beyond prescribed levels.
Environmental writs are petitions to abate pollution. When a Iundamental right including a right
to a wholesome environment has been violated, relieI through Articles 2 and 226 is Iully
appropriate. Where no Iundamental right is involved, High Court will decline to exercise its
jurisdiction iI an equally eIIective remedy is available and has not been used. Section 28 oI the
Water Act & Section 1 oI the Air Act provide the alternative remedy oI administrative appeals
to polluters who are dissatisIied with the pollution control board decisions.Thus, a polluter`s with
the pollution control board decision may be resisted on the ground that an alternative remedy is
available. Moreover, Environmental disputes that involve complicated questions oI Iact to be
resolved aIter recording evidence, a suit is appropriate remedy, rather than a writ petition. For
example, iI pollution injures health, a suit Ior damages is appropriate because evidence to
establish causation would have to be adduced and also because damages are not normally
awarded under Articles 2 and 226. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: THE &ICIAL
APPROACH
Environment protection during the last Iew years has become not only a matter oI national
concern but oI global importance. Decline in environment quality has been evidenced by
increasing pollution, loss oI vegetal cover and bio-diversity, excessive concentration oI harmIul
chemicals in the ambient atmosphere oI Iood chains, growing risks oI environmental accidents
and threat to liIe support systems. This has drawn the attention oI entire world community so
how could the judiciary remain a silent spectator when the subject has acquired high importance
and become a matter oI caution and judicial notice. Justice has correctly stated that 'Judiciary
exists Ior the people and not vice-versa.Judiciary , thereIore cannot sit in silence and helplessly
but must come Iorward actively to make good the deIiciencies oI law and provide relieI
wherever and whenever required. Besides the traditional role oI interpretation and application oI
law, the judiciary can perIorm the educative Iunction oI inIusing an awareness oI the massive
problems oI environmental degradation through a series oI illuminating judgments and through
judicial activism it can evolve new jurisprudential techniques oI 'environmental
jurisprudence.The main question that arose Ior consideration in this regard are: what precisely is
the role oI courts in handling cases relating to environmental protection? Whether the technique
oI PIL has contributed in tackling environmental issues and improving the quality oI public
health? Whether the Judiciary has been able to develop new principles Ior more eIIective control
and prevention oI environmental pollution? Whether the courts can be regarded as an eIIective
agency to curb violation oI environmental laws? What are the mew areas where the courts have
laid down speciIic guidelines Ior protecting the environment?
ub||c Nu|sance 1he Iud|c|a| kesponse Crlmlnal law provlslons as conLalned ln secLlons 268277278
and 290 of Lhe lndlan enal Code and provlslons of chapLer x (secLlon 133 Lo 143) of Lhe Crlmlnal
rocedure Code of 1973 provlde effecLlve speedy and prevenLlve remedles for publlc nulsances cases
lncludlng lnsanlLary condlLlons alr waLer and nolse polluLlon 1he poslLlve slgnal of envlronmenL
proLecLlon ls manlfesL ln Lhe [udlclal Lrend as seL ln Lhe [udgmenL dellvered by v8 krlshna lyer and C
Chlnappa 8eddy !! ln kat|am Mun|c|pa||ty ase whereln Lhe apex courL reallzlng Lhe gravlLy of polluLlon
observed ubllc nulsance because of polluLanLs belng dlscharged by blg facLorles Lo Lhe deLrlmenL of
poorer secLlon ls a challenge Lo Lhe soclal [usLlce componenL of Lhe rule of law"1he [udgmenL of Lhe
Supreme CourL ln Lhls case ls a land mark ln Lhe hlsLory of [udlclal acLlvlsm ln upholdlng Lhe soclal [usLlce
componenL of Lhe rule of law by flxlng llablllLy on sLaLuLory auLhorlLles Lo dlscharge Lhelr legal obllgaLlon
Lo Lhe people ln abaLlng publlc nulsance and maklng Lhe envlronmenLal polluLlon free even lf Lhere ls a
budgeLary consLralnLs lL ls slgnlflcanL also as lL lnLerpreLed secLlon 133 of CrC Lo lmpose a
mandaLory duLy on a maglsLraLe Lo remove a publlc nulsance whenever one exlsLs
ub||c Interest L|t|gat|on And Lnv|ronment rotect|on 1he LradlLlonal rule of Locus SLandl" requlred
Lwo prerequlslLes as a baslc prlnclple for Lhe appllcaLlon of lL 1hey were such as LhaL Lhe peLlLloner
hlmself should have a grlevance and LhaL Lhe peLlLloner's own rlghL musL be ln [eopardy 8uL wlLh Lhe
advenL of welfare sLaLe blddlng farewell Lo lalssez falre Lhe LradlLlonal rule of locus sLandl dld noL flnd
much favour So ln lndla along wlLh many parLs of Lhe world a process of llberallzaLlon began and Lhe
rule expanded Lo make lL easlly accesslble for Lhe deprlved and Lhe underprlvlleged clLlzens
[ The Emerging Profile of PIL: The process oI liberalization in the traditional doctrine has
given rise to a new Iorm oI litigation, popularly known as Public Interest Litigation in India. In
Iact Public Interest Litigation is a strategic arm oI legal aid movement to bring justice within the
reach oI the poor. In contrast to the traditional mode, in the new rule , the petitioner seeks to
champion a public cause Ior the beneIit oI all society and to prevent a egregious state oI aIIairs
or illegitimate policy Irom continuing into the Iuture .
[ PIL with reference to Environmental Protection: Introducing the PIL concept into pollution
cases , in Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand , J. Krishna Iyer observed that , social
justice is due to and thereIore the people must be able to trigger oII the jurisdiction vested Ior
their beneIit to any public Iunctioning.Thus he recognized PIL as a constitutional obligation oI
the courts. As a result oI this development, a spate oI environmental cases has been brought
beIore the courts through public interest litigation. They have been Iiled either by individuals,
voluntary organizations or by letter/petitions sent to judges. Some oI the leading judicial
pronouncements on this point are:
ELHI GAS LEAK CASE: In M.C. Mehta v. &nion of India,popularly known as the Delhi
Gas Leak or Oleum Gas Leak Case, the Supreme Court oI India was conIronted with multi-
dimensional and complex issues relating to environmental pollution such as concerning the true
scope and ambit oI Article 21 and 2 oI the Constitution ; the principles and norms Ior
determining the liability oI large enterprises engaged in manuIacture and sale oI hazardous
products ,the basis on which damages in case oI such liability should be quantiIied ; whether
such large enterprises should be allowed to continue to Iunction in thickly populated areas; and iI
so permitted what measures should be adopted to reduce the risks to minimum to the workers
and community living in the neighborhood. The facts of the case is that the petition was Iiled by
a public spirited lawyer M.C. Mehta who sought to close and relocate Shri Ram Caustic Chlorine
and Sulphuric acid plants located in 76 acre industrial complex, in a thickly populated west
section oI Delhi. In two consequent Oleum gas leaks Irom the plant one advocate was killed. In
view oI this the inspector oI Factories and Assistant Commissioner (Factories) issued separate
orders prohibiting Shriram Irom operating their plants. But being aggrieved by the order the later
Iiled a writ petition challenging the prohibitory order issued under the Factories Act oI 198 and
sought interim permission to reopen the caustic chlorine plant. AIter controversies between the
parties with regard to the recommendations oI various committees, the court through its order on
December 18, 198 constituted another committee called 'Nilay Chaudhary Committee 'to
enquire into the implementation oI the earlier recommendations and to report to the court and
suggest measures to be adopted against the hazards or possibility oI leaks, and pollution control
devices to reduce the risk to minimum. The judgment oI the apex court in this case is historic one
in the Iield oI environmental justice. The Supreme Court laid down two important principles
of law: First, the power oI the Supreme Court to grant remedial relieI Ior a proved inIringement
oI a Iundamental right (in case iI Article 21) includes the power to award compensation. Thus,
the court not only widened the scope oI Article 21 by including in it protection oI environment
but also included a liability in tort Ior those harmed others by pollution. Second, the judgment
opened a new Irontier in the Indian jurisprudence by introducing a new 'no Iault liability
standard (absolute liability) Ior industries engaged in hazardous activities which has brought
about radical changes in the liability and compensation laws in India. The new standard makes
hazardous industries absolutely liable Irom the harm resulting Irom its activities.
GANGA POLL&TION CASE: In M.C. Mehta v. &nion of India, the petitioner prays Ior the
issue oI mandamus to the respondents restraining them Irom letting out the trade eIIluents into
the river Ganga till they take necessary steps Ior treating the trade eIIluents in order to arrest the
pollution oI water in the said river. It is the complaint oI the petitioner that the large industries on
the bank oI the river are disposing the trade eIIluents oI the Iactories and also the sewage oI the
towns and cities and that neither the people nor the government are giving adequate attention to
stop the pollution oI the river. On receiving the petition the court directed the issue oI notice
under O 1, r 8 oI CPC asking the industries not to allow the trade eIIluents and the sewage into
the river Ganga without appropriately treating them beIore discharging them into the river. The
court held that the tanneries at Jajmau, Kanpur cannot be allowed to continue to carry out the
industrial activity unless they take step to establish primary treatment plants. For every breach oI
a right there should be a remedy. It Iurther laid down that the tanneries which have not set up
primary treatment plants must stop running their tanneries. The ban against letting out trade
eIIluents either directly or indirectly would continue till a pre-treatment process was made by
setting up primary treatment plants as approved by the state pollution control board. Those who
had already put up such tanneries were allowed to continue subject to the condition that they kept
the plants in sound working order.
In M.C. Mehta v. &nion of India which is an adjoining case to that oI the above mentioned
case, the court perused the state laws on local bodies and held that Nagar mahapalikas and
municipal boards are primarily responsible Ior the maintenance oI cleanliness in the areas under
their jurisdiction and the protection oI their environment. In the instant case the scientiIic oIIicer
oI the state board Iiled an aIIidavit which pointed to the inaction oI the Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika. Some directions given to the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika by the Supreme Court are:
1) The mahapalika should take action under the provisions oI the relevant bye laws and direct the
dairies either to be shiIted or arrange Ior removal oI waste Irom the existing dairies. 2) Take
steps to lay sewerage line and increase size oI existing ones in labour colonies.) Construct
suIIicient number oI public latrines and urinals to prevent deIecation on openland.) Ensure that
police take steps to see that halI burnt bodies or dead bodies are not thrown into the river.) The
Government both the state and the centre and the Union territories may promote consciousness
oI cleanliness.6)Create national awareness about the deterioration oI the environment.
EHRA&N Q&ARRYING CASE: Mining in Iorest areas creates a question oI conIlict with
the idea oI ecological security oI the land. It can lead to deIorestation. It may destroy biodiversity
and even eliminate wildliIe Irom the areas. The leading case in this regard is Rural Litigation
and Enlightment Kendra v. State of &ttar Pradesh..It is the Iirst momentous decision oI the
apex court wherein it was required to balance environmental and ecological integrity against
industrial demands on Iorest resources. In this case the Supreme Court entertained complaints
Irom the rural litigation and entitlement Kendra, Dehradun alleging that the operations oI lime
stone quarries in the Mussoorie-Dehradun region resulted in degradation oI the environment
aIIecting the Iragile ecosystems in the area. The court as well as the Government oI India
appointed committees to look into the impact oI stone quarrying in Mussoorie. The Iormer is
called the Bhargawa Committee and the latter, the Working group. Three more committees also
looked into diIIerent aspects. The Supreme Court in this case moving under Article 2 ordered
the closure oI some oI this quarries on the ground that these were upsetting the ecological
balance though the judgment did not make a reIerence to Article 21 but involving oI jurisdiction
by the court under Article 2 presupposed the violation oI right to liIe guaranteed under Article
21. The decision oI the apex court in this case is undoubtedly a high water mark in the judicial
history oI India. It calls Ior prevention oI ecological ruin by closure oI quarries, protection and
improvement oI environment through reclamation and aIIorestation and oI generation oI
employment Ior the good and noble task oI ecological balance.
CALC&TTA TA HOTEL CASE: In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, which
is an important town planning case, the facts of the case is that The Government oI West Bengal
gave on lease to the Taj Group, Iour acres oI land belonging to the Calcutta Zoological Garden
Ior the construction oI a Iive star hotel. It was this giving away oI the land that was challenged
by a PIL petition by the secretary oI the Union oI workmen oI the Zoological Garden and a liIe
member oI the zoo. On the lease being upheld in Iavour oI the hoteliers, an appeal was made in
the Supreme Court on the contention that the construction would interIere with the animals in the
zoo and disturb the ecology by causing greenery and the plants to disappear. While on the other
hand the respondents pleaded that the land scaping was so designed to encourage tourism and
that it would not disturb the ecology but improve the surroundings oI the place. The court took
the stand in Iavour oI the Government as it was observed by J. Chinappa Reddy: 'Obviously, iI
the Government is alive to the various considerations requiring thoughts and deliberation and has
arrived at a conscious decision aIter taking them into account, it may not be Ior this court to
interIere in the absence oI malaIides. On the other hand, iI relevant considerations are not borne
in mind and irrelevant considerations inIluence the decision the court may interIere in order to
prevent a likelihood oI prejudice to the public. The court Iurther held that 'whenever a problem
oI ecology is brought beIore the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Art.8-A and Art.1A
(g) oI the Constitution. When the court is called upon to give eIIect to the Directive Principles
and Fundamental Duty, the court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter
oI policy and so it is a matter Ior the policy- making authority.
THE BHOPAL CASE: In &nion Carbide Corporation v. &nion Of India Iacts are as such
that the early morning hours oI December , 198, a poisonous grey cloud (Iorty tons oI toxic
gases) Irom Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL`s) pesticide plant at Bhopal spread throughout
the city. Water carrying catalytic material had entered Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) storage tank No.
610. The killer gas spread through the city, sending residents scurrying through the dark streets.
No alarm ever sounded a warning and no evacuation plan was prepared. When victims arrived at
hospitals breathless and blind, doctors did not know how to treat them, as UCIL had not provided
emergency inIormation. It was only when the sun rose the next morning that the magnitude oI
the devastation was clear. Dead bodies oI humans and animals blocked the streets, leaves turned
black, the smell oI burning chilli peppers lingered in the air. Estimates suggested that as many as
10,000 may have died immediately and 0,000 to 0,000 were too ill to ever return to their
jobs.AIter 26 years, the court verdict Ior the Disaster Iinally came. Some 2 years aIter the gas
leak, 90 tons oI toxic chemicals abandoned at the UCIL plant continue to leak and pollute the
groundwater in the region and aIIect thousands oI Bhopal residents who depend on it. On June 7,
2010, seven ex-employees including the Iormer chairman oI UCIL were convicted in Bhopal oI
causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment each. An eighth Iormer
employee was also convicted but had died beIore judgment was passed. The sentences will run
concurrently. The quantum oI Iine that chieI judicial magistrate Mohan P Tiwari oI the trial court
in Bhopal has imposed is paltry. The court could have awarded exemplary Iine on the accused
and the delinquent company. Behind it stood the government, which had diluted the charges, so
that convictions came only under sections 0-A (causing death by negligence), 6, 7 and
8 (gross negligence), and (common intention) oI the India Penal Code.Warren Anderson,
who was then the CEO oI Union Carbide, was arrested, but was released on bail. Likewise, the
Government oI India passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act that gave the government rights
to represent all victims in or outside India, and used this to strike a bad deal with UCC, according
to which it agreed to pay US$70 million (the insurance sum, plus interest) in a Iull and Iinal
settlement oI its civil and criminal liability. This meant a total oI Rs. 12,000 approximately per
person. The US Court has ruled that there can be no extradition oI Anderson since according to
US law, that his company was guilty is immaterial. His personal criminality has to be proved.
Now owned by Dow Corporation, Union Carbide denies responsibility Ior the tragedy. They are
willing to take the proIits oI Union Carbide India, but not take responsibility Ior its crimes. And
the judiciary has shown that while it is willing to sentence to death an individual who kills Ior
proIit or Ior terrorism, when it is a matter oI big corporate bodies it will soIt pedal.
NLW 1kLNDS IN IUDIILAL AkCA
Problem Of Monitoring Pollution
lL ls clear LhaL ldenLlflcaLlon and monlLorlng of polluLanLs ls by no means an easy Lask lL sLems from Lhe
mulLlpllclLy of polluLanLs and dlfferenL manners of Lhelr escape lnLo Lhe aLmosphere 1he Supreme CourL
ln Lhe case of M Mehta v Un|on of Ind|a has come Lo Lhe rescue of Lhe helpless publlc exposed Lo Lhe
grave dangers and healLh hazards creaLed by vehlcular emlsslons from more Lhan 18 mllllon vehlcles
plylng ln uelhl by dlrecLlng Lhe LransporL auLhorlLles Lo Lake Lo Lhelr Lask of monlLorlng Lhe vehlcular
emlsslons ln an effecLlve way A slgnlflcanL order was passed by Lhe courL dlrecLlng LhaL lf any uelhl
1ransporL CorporaLlon bus or any prlvaLe bus on Lhe fleeL of u1C ls found emlLLlng excesslve smokeLhaL
facL may be broughL Lo Lhe noLlce of a u1C offlcer Lo be named under Lhe lnLlmaLlon Lo Lhe 8eglsLrar of
Lhe Supreme CourL and on recelpL of Lhe lnformaLlon Lhe u1C offlcer concerned wlll lmmedlaLely have
Lhe bus checked up and lnLlmaLe Lhe acLlon Laken Lo Lhe 8eglsLrar of Lhe Supreme CourL lL ls apparenL
LhaL Lhe problem of monlLorlng polluLlon ls dlfflculL one 1he Lechnlque of appolnLlng commlsslon Lo
enqulre lnLo Lhe deLalls of vehlcular Lechnologles for polluLlon conLrol and Lhe mechanlsm of monlLorlng
of polluLlon as deslred by Lhe courL ls a welcome move Slnce governmenL ls noL commlLLed Lo an honesL
and slncere Lask regardlng monlLorlng of polluLlon Lhe responslblllLy Lo a greaL exLenL wlll have Lo be
shared by volunLary organlzaLlons or publlc splrlLed clLlzens as well
Freedom of Information and Right to Know
There is a close link between the government accountability and a citizen`s ability to secure
authentic inIormation. Public access to government inIormation in democratic society is
desirable as it enables citizens to exercise their political choice more meaningIully. It not only
helps to check the abuse oI executive power but inIluences the decision making process to a
better direction wherein an atmosphere oI openness the government can mend administrative
Iollies. Justice Mathew was the Iirst to recognize the citizen`s right to know in the case oI State
of &ttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain.He held that all where all agents oI public must be responsible
Ior their conduct, there can be but Iew secrets. The people oI this country have the right to know
every public act. They are entitled to know the particulars oI every public transaction in all its
bearing. Justice Bhagwati has also recognized the right to know as implicit in Article 19(1) (a) oI
the Constitution in udges Transfer Case.
Public Awareness
A step to retrieve the lack oI public awareness was taken by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta
v. &nion of India.This was a public interest petition in which certain directions oI the court were
sought to be issued against the Union oI India on environmental pollution. The court observed
that enactment oI laws regarding water and air pollution control was not suIIicient. No law can
eIIectively work unless there is an element oI acceptance by the people in the society. In order
that human conduct may be un accordance with the prescribed law, it is necessary that there
should be appropriate awareness oI what the law requires and an element oI acceptance by the
people that the requirement oI law is grounded in a philosophy which is to be Iollowed. This is
possible only when steps are taken to make the people aware oI the indispensable necessity oI
their conduct being oriented in accordance with the requirement oI the law. The court
consequently issued the Iollowing directions to the Government oI India: 1) The Union
Government was required to issue directions to all the State governments and the union
territories to enIorce through collectors as a condition Ior license on all cinema halls , to
compulsory exhibit Iree oI cost at least two slides/messages on environment during each show.2)
The Ministry oI inIormation and Broadcasting oI Government oI India should without delay,
start producing inIormation Iilms oI short duration highlighting the various aspects oI
environment and pollution and the beneIits oI clean environment on society ) Doordarshan and
AIR were directed to produce daily programmes with a duration oI Iive to seven minutes with
messages on the environment and a regular weekly programme on the subject; and )The
Educational Boards were directed to take steps to enIorce compulsory education on environment
upto matriculation Irom the next academic year and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to
consider the Ieasibility oI making environment a compulsory subject at every level in college
education.
CONLC&SION
The whole oI the above discussion demonstrates the active role oI the Supreme Court oI India as
People`s as well as environment court in the last decade the court has showed its contribution in
the development oI environmental jurisprudence. The Ratlam Municipality case, Delhi Gas Leak
case, The Ganga Pollution case, Dehradun Quarrying case, Calcutta Taj Hotel, etc. are some oI
the notable examples where the court, not only by liberalizing the traditional rule oI locus standi
has evolved the concept oI public interest litigation but introduced novel innovative techniques
directed at protection oI environment. The court by additionally providing new remedies or
relieIs and by appointing commissions to look into the task oI identiIication and monitoring the
pollution has been able to provide adequate relieI and compel the state to carry out the directions
given by it Irom time to time. To a great extent the Supreme Court has succeeded in bridging the
gap between the law and its implementation. Apart Irom giving directions the court has Iorced
the industrialists to IulIill their constitutional duty relating to the environment. The court has
done its job by IulIilling its obligation and perIorming its duty. It can be well submitted that
judiciary is not the only eIIective Iorm to resolve environmental problems it is well known that
pollution is a problem which can be eIIectively solved only through public awareness, hence
there is an urgent need that citizens as well as the state must sit up and take notice oI
environmental degradation and take appropriate steps to improve it.