Mr. Swaraj Shukla
Designation – Student of LL.M. (2nd Year)
Affiliation – Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow
Email – swarajshukla21@gmail.com
Ms. Arzu Nayab
Designation – Student of LL.M. (1st Year)
Affiliation – Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow
Email – arzunayab07@gmail.com
Table of Content
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Judicial Activism
- Public Nuisance
- Role of Law in Environment Protection
- Liability-Compensation Approach
- Conservation-Co-operation Approach
- Bargain-Trade-off Approach
- Rights-Sovereignty Approach
- Environmental Jurisprudence in Public Nuisance
- Principles and Doctrines adopted by the Courts
- Doctrine of Sustainable Development
- Doctrine of Absolute Liability
- Polluter Pays Principle
- Precautionary Principle
- Doctrine of Public Trust
- The ‘Activist’ Role of the Judiciary
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
Abstract
The problem of environmental pollution has assumed massive and grave proportions over the decades. It has been left to the courts in India to go behind the letter of the law into the spirit of the law to find out the plausible solutions for the problem though evolution of the law of public nuisance into environmental law. Though the implementation of statutory provisions, as also by embracing various international doctrines, the Supreme Court of India as well as various High Courts have tried time and again to develop environment-friendly jurisprudence in India through the recognition of the principle of Sustainable Development. However, the actions of the judiciary have been under attacks from other organs of the State alleging that the judiciary is transgressing its boundaries and stepping into the realms of the executive and the legislature. This paper is an effort to trace the environmental jurisprudence in India and to find out whether judicial activism can actually lead to sustainable development.
Keywords: Environmental Pollution, Sustainable Development, Polluter Pays, Precautionary Principle, Public Nuisance, Judicial Activism.
Introduction
The problem of environmental pollution is as old as the evolution of Homo sapiens on the earth. Environmental pollution in its magnified form as is today, is affecting the lives of human beings and other organisms on the surface of the earth, which has become a cause for immediate concern. In the United Nations Conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm in the year 1972, various nations came together and adopted the Stockholm Declaration (1972) which is called the “Magna Carta” of environment protection and development. This Declaration adopted the concept of Sustainable Development which was first discussed in the Tokyo Declaration on Environment and Development in the early 1970s.
The concept came up for further discussion in the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1982) and the Brundtland Report (1987). This was further given impetus to in the historic Rio Declaration in the Earth Summit in 1992. The Summit recognizes the principle of Sustainable Development as a balancing concept of development and ecology.[1] With the participation of India in the Stockholm and the Rio Conferences, the need arose to have specific legislations to implement Sustainable Development and thus were enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism was first noticed in the historic American case of Marbury v. Madison[2], and adopted by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mumbai Kamghar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai[3], though without the nomenclature. It was recognized later in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[4], and has been actively followed by the Indian judiciary thereon. The concept of Judicial Activism goes against the very doctrine of Separation of Powers among the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Constitution of India demarcates all these powers and their areas of operation. However, sometimes with the failure of the Legislature and the Executive, the Separation of Powers remain a theory only in textbooks and the third wing of governance, the judiciary assumes powers unprecedented for under the name and guise of Judicial Review, which is a very basic feature of the Constitution of India.[5] This is known as Judicial Activism. By stretching the letter of the law a little and acting according to the spirit behind it, the judiciary has intervened in cases where there is blatant misuse of discretion of executive authority or a lackadaisical attitude towards booking the corrupt and other anti-social elements in society.[6]
Public Nuisance
The word “Nuisance” is originally derived from the French word “Nuire”.[7] The doctrinal roots of modern environmental law could be based on the law of nuisance: nuisance actions could challenge every major industrial and municipal activity which is today a subject of comprehensive environmental litigation.[8] The law of nuisance can be divided into public nuisance and private nuisance; public nuisance, which could encompass most environmental issues, falls mainly in the purview of the criminal law.[9]
Jowitt defines public nuisance as an act which interferes with the enjoyment of a right which all members of a community are entitled to, such as right to fresh air, to travel on highways, not to be exposed to danger to health from infectious diseases, unwholesome food, etc.[10] The Indian Law Commissioners in Section 268 (Now section 270 under BNS)[11] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have largely borrowed the definition of public nuisance from the authors of the Digest of Criminal Law.[12]
Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now section 152 under BNSS)[13], a district magistrate or a sub-divisional magistrate or any other executive magistrate specially empowered in this behalf may take the initiative in removing public nuisance.[14] This can be done on the information brought to him. The scheme has been used as machinery for removing environmental degradation and remedying pollution.[15]
Role of Law in Environment Protection
Over the last two hundred years, the stand taken by law in order to remedy environmental pollution problems can be divided broadly into four approaches:[16]
- Liability-Compensation Approach
This approach takes into account the fact that risk and injuries are inevitable in progress and development. Law cannot stop development in order to put an end to pollution. Hence this method seeks to put liability on the perpetrators and award compensation to the victims appropriately. However, in view of the recent enormity in pollution cases, this method has virtually ceased to exist. - Conservation-Co-operation Approach
Here the focus is on the prevention of the harm and intelligent management of resources by co-operation among the stakeholders. Sustainable development is the mantra and not taking liberties with ecology is the approach. - Bargain-Trade-off Approach
Development would involve environmental costs. Therefore, it is for the law to see how and where to absorb these costs, thereby keeping the damage to the minimum. If harm still occurs, Polluter Pays Principle comes into play. This is a popular approach endorsed in environmental laws. - Rights-Sovereignty Approach
People have sovereign rights over natural resources and the function of the State is to regulate them. There is a Constitutional right to clean environment which is a part of right to life.[17] Hence environmental law is to be looked at from the point of people and construed accordingly.
Environmental Jurisprudence in Public Nuisance
The remedies in public nuisance under criminal law are quite old but during the recent years the higher judiciary has imparted new dimensions to these remedies by their extensive construction to enable citizens to bring actions against the public bodies to force them to be vigilant to keep the environment unpolluted.[18]
The Calcutta High Court judgment in Galstaun case[19] may be said to be earliest reported case relating to pollution. The court held that no private person can claim a right to foul an ordinary drain by discharging into it what it is not intended to carry off and then throw on the municipality an obligation to alter the drain in order to remedy the nuisance.[20]
Gobind Singh v. Shanti Swaroop[21] is the first case in which the Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. to approve the order of the magistrate to demolish the oven and the chimney of a baker as the baking process caused air pollution. The Supreme Court stated as follows:
It is clear from the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the evidence disclosed that the smoke emitted by the chimney constructed by the appellant was ‘injurious to the health and physical comfort of the people living or working in the proximity’ of the appellant’s bakery and that there was no justification on the part of the appellant for discharging the smoke from the chimney. Considering the nature of this construction and the volume of smoke emitted by it the learned Magistrate concluded that the chimney was not only an encroachment upon a public place but its construction led to a graver consequence. Allowing the use of the oven and the chimney was, according to the Magistrate, ‘virtually playing with the health of the people.’
The case occurred at a time when pollution free equipments were not popular in the country. In modern times, when eco-friendly equipments are available in plenty, the observation of the court becomes very relevant despite the fact that the demolition of the oven and the chimney as ordered in the case amounted to the stoppage of the baker’s business. Judicial activism of the eighties made its impact felt in the area of environment protection through the landmark judgment of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand[22]. The Supreme Court identified the responsibilities of local bodies towards the protection of environment and developed the law of public nuisance in the Cr.P.C. as a potent instrument for enforcement of their duties. The residents within Ratlam municipality were suffering from a long time from a pungent smell from open drains. The odour caused by public excretion in slums and the liquids flowing on to the street from the distilleries forced the people to approach the magistrate for a remedy. Following a direction from the magistrate to remove the drain, a six-month time bound program had to be adopted for constructing drainage and public latrines. Instead of complying with the order, the municipality opted to challenge it, pleading financial constraints and inability to carry out the scheme. When the case came to the Supreme Court, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in his inimitable style held:
A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies. Similarly, providing drainage systems- not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet the needs of the people- cannot be evaded if the municipality is to justify its existence.
Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ratlam Municipality case is a landmark in the history of judicial activism in upholding the social justice component of the rule of law by fixing liability on statutory authorities to discharge their legal obligation to the people in abating public nuisance and making the environment pollution free even if there are budgetary constraints.[23]
Following the decision in Ratlam, the courts have issued directions to remind statutory authorities and local bodies to remove garbage and to keep cities and towns clean. By entrusting them directly with the responsibility of studying the state of the environment and ecology, like identification of hazardous industry, and asking them to issue notice of closure or relocation of industries, courts have moulded these bodies into dynamic independent environmental protection agencies.[24]
In Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal[25], the Allahabad High Court went into the contours of the concept of nuisance embedded in the statute.
In December, 1984, India witnessed one of the greatest man-made calamities in Bhopal, the capital city of the State of Madhya Pradesh, from a factory owned by Union Carbide India Limited. Methyl Isocyanate, a highly poisonous gas leaked out and it resulted in the death of more than two thousand persons who were mostly the hutment-dwellers in the near vicinity of the factory. The air carried the leaked deadly poisonous gas to the thickly populated areas and about two lakhs people suffered various bodily injuries. The Union Carbide India Limited is a company incorporated in India by Americans. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was an eye opener and the protection of environment was taken as a serious matter. The Indian Parliament passed the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Environment Protection Act empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. Rules were also framed for implementation of the provisions of the Act.[26]
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.[27], the court ordered the closure of certain limestone quarries on the ground that there were serious deficiencies regarding safety and hazards in them. In Janki v. Sardar Nagar Municipality[28], the High Court of Gujarat entertained a writ petition under Article 226 in a public interest case. It persuaded the municipality and the State Government to provide sewerage and drainage systems for the residents of that area.
In Krishna Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh[29], the Indore bench of the M.P. High Court held that the order of dismantling the alkaline factory causing noise and odour in the residential locality was valid despite the fact that only a single person took up the matter with the executive magistrate.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[30], the court ordered the closure of tanneries at Jajamau near Kanpur which were polluting the Ganga river, till they took up steps to set up treatment plants.
In T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad[31], the A.P. High Court allowed a petition forbidding the construction of houses for government organizations on land allocated for a recreational park.
The famous Ganga River Pollution case[32] is another landmark judgment in the history of public nuisance litigation in India. The river Ganga got polluted due to discharge of industrial wastes, effluents, human excreta into the river. Further, a number of dead bodies are being thrown into the river at Kasi, with a belief that the dead persons would go to heaven directly since they consider Kasi as holy place and the river as sacred. The petitioner, Advocate M.C. Mehta filed a P.I.L petition in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution against the Union of India, Kanpur Municipal Corporation and others for removal of public nuisance caused by the polluted Ganga water. The Supreme Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities concerned to take up necessary steps for removal of the public nuisance and also appreciated the petitioner for taking imitative in this regard.[33]
In Himmath Singh v. Bhagwan[34], the Rajasthan High Court held that when sand winds carried particles of fodder from a fodder cutting machine, which itself caused noise and offensive smell, to the residential locality, it created public nuisance.
In Krishna Panicker v. Appukuttan Nair[35], the Kerala High Court held that the special acts like the Water Act or Air Act cannot be held as repealing Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.[36]
In the famous Bichhri Village case[37], the Supreme Court suggested that High Courts would be the appropriate forums to decide on matters pertaining to environmental pollution because of the localized nature of the problems. Also, the lower judiciary would have the necessary means to assess the matrix of the problem and correctly ascertain its implication before passing any judgment.
In Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India[38], after issuing various directions for closure and relocation of polluting tanneries in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court entrusted the Madras High Court with the responsibility of monitoring matters as if they were a part of the petition. The notable ‘request’ made by the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court was to constitute a special bench – a ‘Green Bench’- to deal with the case and other environmental matters, as is done in Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and in some other High Courts.[39]
The court also directed the Central Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to monitor the implementation of the treatment plants, close the industries, which did not take any steps for installation of treatment plants, impose fine on the tanneries for delay in installations of treatment plants and set up ‘Environment Protection Fund’ for compensating the affected persons identified by the authority. It also approved the standards for ‘total dissolve of solids’ recommended by NEERI (National Environmental Engineering Research Institute).
With a view to preserve environment and control pollution within the vicinity of tourist resorts of Bodknul and Surajkund, the court directed the stoppage of mining activity within two kilometers radius of these two tourist resorts in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.[40]
In Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union of India[41], intervention of the court was sought to prevent pollution of river Gomti in U.P. due to discharge of effluents from the distillery of Mohan Meakins Ltd. The court directed the removal of deficiencies in the effluent treatment plant as well as imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs on the company.[42]
Another important case is the Taj Trapezium (TTZ) case[43] filed for protecting the Taj Mahal, the historic monument of India from emissions from carbon and coke based industries in the TTZ zone. The Court ruled that industries, identified by the Pollution Control Board as potential polluters, had to change over to natural gas as an industrial fuel and those that were not in a position to obtain gas connections for any reason should stop functioning in TTZ and relocate themselves in alternative plots outside the demarcated area within the stipulated time.
International treaties, agreements, conventions and decisions taken at international conferences have to be incorporated into the law of the land by parliamentary legislation. The Taj decision is an instance of judicial strategy of applying a norm formulated at the international level into the facts of the case and accepting it as part of the legal system.
The directives of the Apex Court went to the extent of spreading environmental awareness and literacy as well as the launching of environmental education programs. The directions of the Court to All India Radio and Doordarshan, to focus their programmes on various aspects of the environment, have been immediately complied with. The Court also required every State Government and education board to take steps for environmental education.[44]
The long line of cases, thereafter, regulating shrimp culture industry in the ecologically fragile coastal areas[45], directing the Pollution Control Board regarding proper search of effluents in lagoons[46], controlling vehicular pollution in Delhi by use of CNG and phasing of old vehicles[47], protecting the Yamuna river[48], regulating solid waste disposal and cleaning of metropolitan cities[49], prohibiting the use of amplifiers for religious propagation causing disturbance to the sick, the aged, the children and the students[50], imposing exemplary damages for restoration of environment and ecology on construction of Span Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on Beas river[51], banning smoking in public places[52], protecting Cubban park at Bangalore[53], enforcing the Forest (Conservation) Act[54], issuing directions for disposal of imported contaminated waste oil[55], rationalizing meat export promotion policy[56] and intervening in town planning in Mumbai on the principle of Sustainable Development[57] in a series of orders and many other matters have finally established environmental jurisprudence in India.
The Apex Court has taken many unpopular decisions which have proved beneficial in the long run. Judicial directions in matters like pollution of our holy rivers, the Ganges and the Yamuna, pollution of underground water, choking of Delhi, Calcutta and other metros due to air pollution, protection of national historical monuments like the Taj Mahal, have rendered great service to humanity. Seeds have been planted, path has been shown, and direction has been given. However, our law enforcement has yet to catch up with these efforts. Law cannot reach where enforcement cannot follow. Without proper enforcement of laws our court orders will not be able to achieve desired results.
Principles and Doctrines Adopted by the Courts
In evolving enviro-legal jurisprudence in India, the courts have adopted various common law principles and various international doctrines time to time and have merged them with Indian environmental law. They are as follows:
- Doctrine of Sustainable Development
Sustainable development has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting Eco-systems. ‘Sustainable Development’ as defined by the Brundtland Report means ‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.’ Sustainable Development as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the Customary International Law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the International Law Jurists.[58] - Doctrine of Absolute Liability
This doctrine was evolved in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries[59]. This case was filed for the shifting of caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plants located in a thickly populated area in Delhi. From that very plant, oleum gas leaked out and it caused some panic among the neighbourhood residents. The court said that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortuous principles of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher[60].
- Polluter Pays Principle
This was invoked by the court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India[61]. Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the polluter carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other affected party by polluter’s activity irrespective of the fact whether the polluter took reasonable care while carrying on his activity’. In this case, the Court has stated that the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of the pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Subsequently, ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ as interpreted by the Court has been recognised as a fundamental objective of government policy to prevent and control pollution.[62] - Precautionary Principle
This principle was applied by the court in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[63]. It imposes an obligation on every developer, industry and governmental agency to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The Court also held that if there are threats of serious and irreversible damage then any lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. Finally, the Court emphasised that the onus of proof shall be on the actors or the industrialists to show that their action is environmentally benign.
- Doctrine of Public Trust
This doctrine has been referred to by the court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[64]. The doctrine extends to natural resources such as rivers, forests, sea shores, air etc., for the purpose of protecting the eco-system. The State holds the natural resources as a trustee and cannot commit breach of trust. In the above case, the State’s order for grant of a lease to a motel located on the bank of the river Beas, which resulted in the Motel interfering with the natural flow of the water, has been quashed and the public company which got the lease has been directed to compensate the cost of restitution of environment and ecology in the area.
The ‘Activist’ Role of the Judiciary
Judicial Activism, as discussed earlier, has crept into environmental law as well as all other branches of law, in spite of a separation of powers as envisaged by our Constitution. Obviously, the question arises as to the reasons behind it. The plethora of environmental enactments and constitutional provisions has not succeeded in preventing environmental pollution in the country.
The last two decades have been a period of rapid degradation of the Indian environment. The laws, by and large, have remained unenforced, mal-administered or mismanaged. In such situations, the environmental activists and NGOs have approached the Court for suitable remedies and the Court’s intervention has resulted in reminding and compelling the implementing agencies to perform their statutory obligations towards the protection of environment. This process of judicial intervention in resolving environmental disputes is viewed as judicial activism in present days. Judicial activism means essentially that the judiciary expands its own scope and jurisdiction and goes into matters not normally considered to be within its own domain and that the judiciary often goes beyond giving of judgments and issuing of specific directions for executive action and sometimes even monitoring the progress of action, resorting to what is known as ‘continuing mandamus’.[65]
Even a cursory study of the judgments of the Indian courts especially the Supreme Court would reflect the consistent commitment of the courts towards the protection of the environment. Very often the courts have had to not only lay down the law but also closely monitor its implementation due to the political compulsions of the Government. The executive needs to show stronger commitment towards implementation of environment related laws.[66] Due to the urgent nature of environment litigations, very often the courts need to move swiftly applying ‘creative reason’ under ‘judicial activism’ with a view to securing justice which requires protection of right to ‘life’ – ‘life’ in a real healthy sense.[67]
In India, the pollution control boards are ineffective and the Executive, from Ministers to minions, are not beyond purchase. The management of power in a complex society is a tough task. Corporate terrorism is a new power with corrupt tools to tackle eco-enviro restraints. Our legal system, with a wealth of legislation has failed to make corporations accountable or transparent. Corporate crime such as chemical pollution outwits the law. Why? It is easy to answer: Corporate power has sway over executive power.[68] If environmental justice is to be a reality, regulatory mechanisms must call to order corporate misbehaviour.
One classic example where the cigarette industry, with all its charms and blandishments, failed to convince the court about its innocence is Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala[69]. After a trial of curial length, the court mastered the subject matter expertly to produce a classic judgment demonstrating how golden leaf is a lethal leaf, how tobacco use is the route to cancer and death.[70]
Justice Kurup produced an amazing judgment proving beyond doubt that tobacco was among the great killers of our time and the prohibition of its use was implicit in Article 21, read with Article 47 of the Constitution. The Bench relied on the Ratlam Municipality case for empowerment to ban smoking which is only not an innocent pleasure to the smoker but not also to the neighbour called passive smoker inhaling the vicious vapour. Ramakrishnan paved the way for judicial excellence in controlling pollution and now this law has found favour with the Supreme Court of India making smoking in public places an offence.[71]
From Ratlam to Ramakrishnan we have a vast vista of judicial jurisdiction and environmental jurisprudence which if radically used will usher in a healthy biosphere.
Conclusion
A newspaper report[72] source to the AFP news agency quotes an article from the Science Journal brings into sharp focus some mind-boggling facts. The report states that as of 1995 only 17% of the worlds land area remains truly wild – with no human populations, crops, road access or night-time light detectable by satellite. Half of the world’s surface area is used for crops or grazing; more than half of all forests have been lost to land conversion; the largest land mammals on several continents have been eliminated; shipping lanes crisscross the oceans.
Due to extensive damming, nearly six times as much water is held in artificial storage worldwide as is free-flowing. Subtle and not so subtle changes brought about by man upon the environment are evident everywhere. The report states the natural selection has been supplanted by human selection, meaning that certain species – such as companion pets – thrive, while others – such as river trout – have been altered specifically for human consumption often to their detriment. And, thus, altering ecosystems has left many species vulnerable to disturbances and less resilient. Such shrilling facts ought to serve as a constant reminder to us to maintain our commitment to the protection of our environment.
The contribution of the Supreme Court of India in protecting the environment and ecology, forest, wild life, etc. has been phenomenal. Despite the limitations of jurisdiction, the Court played a vital role in this regard. More importantly what is needed from an environmental angle is a vision for the future. We have got enough laws to protect the environment, but its implementation is in the hands of administrative authorities. Good governance free from corruption is the basic need to protect the environment. The words of Justice Frankfurter are apt, quoting “An onerous obligation……..we owe to posterity……clean air, clean water, greenery and open space. They ought to be elevated to the status of birth right of every citizen.”[73]
Bibliography
Legislations:
- The Constitution of India, 1950
- The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Dictionaries:
- Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. LXVI (1950)
- Dictionary of English Law, Vol. 2, (1977)
Books/ Commentaries:
- Dharmendra S. Sengar, Environmental Law, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., (New Delhi) 2007
- Kailash Thakur, Environmental Protection Law and Policy in India, Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd. (New Delhi), 1st ed. Reprint, 2005
- M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 5th ed. Reprint 2006, Wadhwa (Nagpur)
- P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law Case Book, Lexis Nexis Butterworths (Delhi), 2004
- Paras Diwan & Peeyushi Diwan, Environment Administration Law and Judicial Attitude, Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1997, Deep & Deep Publications, (New Delhi)
Articles:
- Arpita Saha, Judicial Activism in India: A Necessary Evil, (July 8, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1156979
- C.M. Abraham & Sushila Abraham, The Bhopal Case and the Development of Environmental Law in India, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, (Apr., 1991), pp. 334-365. Available at JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/stable/759728
- Geetanjoy Sahu, Implications of Indian Supreme Court’s Innovations for Environmental Jurisprudence, 4/1 Law Environment and Development Journal (2008) p. 1. Available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/08001.pdf
- Karni Singh, Environmental Justice: Experience Vs. Expectations. Available at Legal Service India.com: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ev_ex.htm
- Nirmal Chopra, Environment Problems – Penal Action Required, (2004) PL WebJour3. Available at: http://www.ebc-india.com/practicallawyer/index.php?option=com_
- Rambabu Dubey and Geeta Shrivastava, The Realistic School and Judicial Activism in India, Central India Law Quarterly, Vol. XIII, 2000, p. 432-441. Available at: http://www.cili.in/article/download/1643/1812
- Surya Deva, Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Overview, (June 22, 2009). Civil Justice Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 19-40, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1424236
Cases:
- A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812
- Akhil Bharat Go-seva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 4 SCC 162
- Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1256
- Bimal L. Desai v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 2246
- Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434
- Church of Lord [Full Gospel] in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773
- Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, AIR 1982 All 285
- Gobind Singh v. Shanti Swaroop, AIR 1979 SC 143
- Gopi Aqua Firms v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3519
- Himmath Singh v. Bhagwan, 1988 Cri LJ 614
- In re: Bhavani Rivers Shakthi Sugars Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 2059
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446
- J.C. Galstaun v. Dunia Lal Seal, (1905) 9 CWN 612
- Janki v. Sardar Nagar Municipality, AIR 1986 Guj 49
- Krishna Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1986 Cri LJ 396
- Krishna Panicker v. Appukuttan Nair, (1993) 1 KLJ 725
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIR 2002 SC 1515
- M.C. Mehta v. Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, AIR 1987 SC 965
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 851
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 2663
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 291
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1948
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 356
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 853
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
- Mumbai Kamghar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai, AIR 1976 SC 1465
- Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622
- Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40
- News Item ‘Hindustan Times’ AQFM Yamuna, AIR 2000 SC 3510
- Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 1999 (2) KLT 725
- Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 675
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1985) 2 SCC 431
- Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
- S. Jagannath v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 811
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
- T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2721
- Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 714
Online Resources:
- Jethmal Jain, Nuisance. Available at: http://blogs.siliconindia.com/ /NH680530.html.
- Kamaluddin Khan, Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism. Available at:
- N.R. Madhava Menon, Legal Aspects of Environmental Protection. Available at:
http://ismenvis.nic.in/lecture2002.pdf
- Ravi Kant, Judicial Activism and the Role of Green Benches in India. Available at: http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/judicial-activism-greenbenches-india/
- Sunil Ambwani, J., Environmental Justice: Scope and Access. Available at: http://districtcourtallahabad.up.nic.in/articles/environmental.pdf
- V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., Environmental Justice Through Judicial Process: From Ratlam to
Ramakrishnan. Available at: http://www.esgindia.org/projects//RATLAM%
[1] Environmental Justice: Scope and Access, Valedictory Address by Justice Sunil Ambwani, Allahabad High
Court at the Workshop on Sustainable Development for the Subordinate Judiciary, (19th-21st August, 2006),
organized by The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi. Available at
http://districtcourtallahabad.up.nic.in/articles/environmental.pdf.
[2] 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
[3] AIR 1976 SC 1465.
[4] AIR 1978 SC 853.
[5] Deva, Surya, Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Overview, (June 22, 2009). Civil Justice Quarterly,
Vol. 28, pp. 19-40, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1424236.
[6] Saha, Arpita, Judicial Activism in India: A Necessary Evil, (July 8, 2008). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1156979.
[7] Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. LXVI 725 (1950).
[8] William H. Rogers, Jr., Handbook on Environmental Law (1977), p. 100. Cited in: C.M. Abraham & Sushila
Abraham, The Bhopal Case and the Development of Environmental Law in India, The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, (Apr., 1991), pp. 334-365. Available at JSTOR:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/759728.
[9] C.M. Abraham & Sushila Abraham, The Bhopal Case and the Development of Environmental Law in India, The
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, (Apr., 1991), pp. 334-365. Available at JSTOR:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/759728.
[10] Dictionary of English Law, Vol. 2, 1261 (1977).
[11] Section 268 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, now section 270 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
[12] H.S. Gour, The Penal Code of India, Vol. II, 9th ed., 1896 (1978). Cited in: Paras Diwan & Peeyushi Diwan,
Environment Administration Law and Judicial Attitude, Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1997, Deep & Deep Publications, (New
Delhi), p. 297
[13] Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, now section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
[14] Jethmal Jain, Nuisance, 2008. Available at- https://blogs.siliconindia.com/jethmal/NUISANCEbid-u.html.
[15] P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law Case Book, Lexis Nexis Butterworths (Delhi), 2004, p. 15.
[16] Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon, Vice-Chancellor, The W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, on Legal
Aspects of Environmental Protection at Prof. S.K. Bose Memorial Lecture, 2002 on 11 January, 2002 at the
Centre of Mining Environment, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. Available at Indian School of Mines:
http://ismenvis.nic.in/lecture2002.pdf.
[17] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388
[18] Dr. Rambabu Dubey and Geeta Shrivastava, The Realistic School and Judicial Activism in India, Central India
Law Quarterly, Vol. XIII, 2000, p. 432-441. Available at: http://www.cili.in/article/download/1643/1812.
[19] J.C. Galstaun v. Dunia Lal Seal, (1905) 9 CWN 612
[20] Dharmendra S. Sengar, Environmental Law, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., (New Delhi) 2007, p. 116.
[21] AIR 1979 SC 143.
[22] AIR 1980 SC 1622.
[23] Kailash Thakur, Environmental Protection Law and Policy in India, Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd. (New
Delhi), 1st ed. Reprint, 2005, p. 307.
[24] Karni Singh, Environmental Justice: Experience Vs. Expectations. Available at Legal Service India.com: http://
www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ev_ex.htm.
[25] AIR 1982 All 285.
[26] Ravi Kant, Judicial Activism and the Role of Green Benches in India. Available on Law Resource India:
[27] (1985) 2 SCC 431.
[28] AIR 1986 Guj 49.
[29] 1986 Cri LJ 396.
[30] (1987) 4 SCC 463.
[31] AIR 1987 AP 171.
[32] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115.
[33] Kamaluddin Khan, Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism. Available on TwoCircles.net:
[34] 1988 Cri LJ 614
[35] (1993) 1 KLJ 725
[36] Confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC
389.
[37] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
[38] AIR 1996 SC 2715.
[39] Karni Singh, Environmental Justice: Experience Vs. Expectations. Available at www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ev_ex.htm.
[40] AIR 1996 SC 851.
[41] (1996) 7 SCC 714.
[42] Nirmal Chopra, Environment Problems – Penal Action Required, (2004) PL WebJour 3. Available at The
Practical Lawyer: http://www.ebc-india.com/practicallawyer/index.php?.
[43] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353.
[44] Karni Singh, Environmental Justice: Experience Vs. Expectations. Available at Legal Service India.com: http://
www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ev_ex.htm.
[45] Gopi Aqua Firms v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3519.
[46] In re: Bhavani Rivers Shakthi Sugars Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 2059.
[47] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 291.
[48] News Item ‘Hindustan Times’ AQFM Yamuna, AIR 2000 SC 3510.
[49] Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1256.
[50] Church of Lord [Full Gospel] in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773.
[51] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIR 2002 SC 1515.
[52] Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40.
[53] Bimal L. Desai v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 2246.
[54] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1.
[55] Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 675.
[56] Akhil Bharat Go-seva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 4 SCC 162.
[57] Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434.
[58] Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Environmental Justice Through Judicial Process: From Ratlam to Ramakrishnan,
2002. Available at: http://www.esgindia.org/projects/kja2002/docs/RATLAM%20J%20Krishna%20Iyer.htm.
[59] AIR 1987 SC 965.
[60] (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
[61] AIR 1996 SC 1446.
[62] Government of India, National Environmental Policy, 2006, available at
http://www.envfor.nic.in/nep/nep2006.html. Cited in Geetanjoy Sahu, Implications of Indian Supreme Court’s
Innovations for Environmental Jurisprudence, 4/1 Law Environment and Development Journal (2008) p. 1.
Available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/08001.pdf.
[63] AIR 1996 SC 2715.
[64] (1997) 1 SCC 388.
[65] Ramaswamy Iyer, Some Constitutional Dilemmas, 41 (21) Economic and Political Weekly 2064 (2006). Cited
in: Geetanjoy Sahu, Implications of Indian Supreme Court’s Innovations for Environmental Jurisprudence,
Available at http://www.leadjournal.org/content/08001.pdf.
[66] Ravi Kant, Judicial Activism and the Role of Green Benches in India. Available on Law Resource India:
[67] Supra Note 5.
[68] Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Environmental Justice Through Judicial Process: From Ratlam to Ramakrishnan,
2002. Available at: http://www.esgindia.org/projects/kja200MAKRI%20J%20Krishna%20Iyer.htm.
[69] 1999 (2) KLT 725.
[70] Supra Note 68.
[71] Supra Note 66.
[72] The Hindu, dated 29.06.2024.
[73] Supra Note 68.
