Role of Judiciary in Environment Protection: A Study of Landmark Judgements

Authored By: Charu Seth

Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune

Abstract:

The negative consequences of fast industrialization, commercialization, and population increase have been major drivers of India’s environmental conservation movement in recent decades. The interaction of governmental policy, legislative actions, and—most importantly—judicial interventions shape the environmental jurisprudence in India. On the other hand, through judicial activism, the Indian court has played a significant role in developing environmental jurisprudence. With an emphasis on procedures like Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and continuous mandamus, this article examines the judiciary’s revolutionary role in environmental protection. The article addresses important legal theories that Indian courts have advanced, such as the Public Trust Doctrine, the Polluter Pays Principle, and the Precautionary Principle, all of which are now essential to the nation’s environmental governance. This article also examines important court decisions that have influenced environmental jurisprudence, including the MC Mehta cases and other notable decisions where judges have struck a balance between ecological sustainability and economic development.

Keywords: pollution, degradation, environment, sustainability, preservation, environmental doctrines

Introduction:

“Our planet’s alarm is going off, and it is time to wake up and take action!” – Leonardo DiCaprio Environment is a home to the entire living population of the World. It is a blessing bestowed upon human beings from the divine. It’s innocent and heart-warming healing is a calm to the human chaos and confusion; but human negligence and greed tends to destroy the beauty and life on the Earth. The ongoing battle to create new inventions and lay foundations has resulted in devastation, ozone layer depletion, global warming, and the extinction of wildlife. The ongoing battle to create new innovations and set foundations has resulted in devastation, and extinction of biodiversity.

In India, the connection between environmental deterioration and public health has grown more apparent in recent years. Human health has suffered greatly as a result of increasing air and water pollution, uncontrolled industrial discharge, deforestation, and inappropriate waste disposal, especially in urban areas. cardiovascular conditions, respiratory conditions, waterborne infections, and poor environmental conditions have even been connected to cancer. Despite the fact that there are numerous laws, including the Environment

Legal Framework

Constitution of India
Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Environment Act, 1986
Wildlife protection Act, 1972
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
The Ozone Depleting Substances Rules
Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001
Noise Pollution Rule, 2000
Public Liability Insurance Act In 1991
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Coastal Regulation Zone Notification
Energy Act, 2010
Forest Rights Act, 2006
National environmental Appellate Authority Act
National Forest Policy, 1988

Judicial Involvement and Environmental Law:

The Indian judiciary’s role in environmental conservation is known as judicial activism. In an otherwise predatory framework, it has frequently taken the place of inertia or inefficiency on the part of the legislative and executive departments. To advance this, the courts have established new channels for the extension of environmental rights through the filing of continuous mandamus, epistolary jurisdiction, and Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Litigation in Public Interest (PIL):

PIL has revolutionized environmental jurisprudence in India. Only those who were directly impacted could petition the courts prior to the PIL’s implementation in the late 1970s, but its introduction has allowed individuals and groups to pay attention to public issues. In the first place, it established channels for addressing public environmental issues when governments were careless.

NGT, or the National Green Tribunal

Established in accordance with the 2010 National Green Tribunal Act, the NGT has recently developed into a significant entity that uses an effective dispute resolution process to convince environmental nuisances. Under important environmental laws it is tasked with managing cases pertaining to pollution, forest conservation, water management, and biodiversity. The NGT has rendered historic rulings that call for systemic changes rather than just immediate remedies:

The 2015 Yamuna River Pollution Case: mandated towns to prevent sewage pollution, imposed severe penalties on enterprises releasing untreated effluents, and, for the most part, adopted a proactive approach to long-term environmental issues.

The 2013 Satellite Copper unit Case: It declared that environmental safety and public health were still of utmost importance and ordered the closure of that polluting industrial unit in Tamil Nadu.

Volkswagen Emission Case (2018): It established a precedent for holding global businesses accountable and penalized the carmaker for employing devices to rig emissions tests. The NGT’s work has, in many respects, made it a crucial pillar of environmental governance because of its emphasis on responsibility and proactive measures.

Judicial Interpretation:

Landmark Judgements

Charan Lal Sahu etc. v. Union of India & ors 1990 AIR 1480.[1]

In this case, the Supreme Court established a relationship between the Environment and the right to life.

Subhash kumar v. State of Bihar 1991 SCR (1) 5.[2]

The Supreme Court held that the right to healthy Environment is a fundamental right under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also included the right to pollution free air, clean water and sanitation under its purview.

M.C. Mehta v Union of India & ors. 1987 SCR (1) 819.[3]

The Supreme Court introduced the concept of ‘absolute liability’ for such disasters which did not include the intention of the individual. If the nature of the thing is such that it could cause hazards and destruction then the owner would be held absolutely liable in case any such of mishandling.

Vellore citizen welfare forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.[4]

The Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of Sustainable development and laid down two principles; ‘Precautionary Principle’ and the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ which was held as an important concept as the Court itself recognized the importance of businesses for the growth and development of both the people and the nation but it held that there should be an appropriate balance between the Protection of Environment and the generational development.

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388].[5]

The Hon’ble Court held that under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution it would award not only damages but also fine in the case of environmental degradation. It also held that the disruption to basic elements like air, water would cause hazards in the Environment at large.

Rural litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 2426.[6]

The court held that the resources of the nature are those assets of the humankind which are permanent and natural and should be protected for the well-being of the future generations as well.

Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corp Hyderabad Case AIR 1987 AP 171.[7]

In this case, the Court relied upon the Constitutional mandate under Articles 48A and 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution and said that any degradation and destruction would violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand Case 1981 SCR (1) 97.[8]

The Supreme Court in this case, addressed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a mandatory regulation of the Court. It held that it is the responsibility of the state and statutory authorities to comply with and curb the public nuisance relating to environment and make it pollution free even if there are budget constraints. The approach was to make the system regarding the social justice to be the rule of law.

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & ors. (2000) 10 SCC 664. [9]

The Supreme Court held that water is the basic need for the survival of human life and is inherent in their existence. It is both the right to life and protected under the ambit of human rights as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Samit Mehta v. Union of India MANU/GT/0104/2016. [10]

The National Tribunal directed to pay the compensation amounting ₹100,000 crore for the pollution caused due to the sinking of the ship.

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India 2019 (13) SCC 52. [11]

The Supreme Court in this case had imposed restrictions on the burning of firecrackers in Delhi due to the rise in air pollution.

Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590. [12]

The Supreme Court emphasized sustainable development mining practises and banned illegal mining in Goa.

Godavarman Thirumulad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267. [13]

The Supreme Court interpreted the Forest Conservation Act, 1890 in a broader perspective and clubbed deforestation in several states.

Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62. [14]

The court stressed upon the Precautionary Principle in environmental decision making and held the significance of scientific expertise in environmental decision making.

Sterlite Copper Plant Case 2013 (4) SCC 575.[15]

The courts supported the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to close the Sterlite Copper factory because of environmental issues. These instances show how the court’s proactive decisions have significantly influenced India’s environmental policies.

Abhilash Textiles v. Rajkot Municipal Corp. AIR 1988 GUJ 57. [16]

The Gujarat High Court in its judgment held that harvesting of profit in consideration of public health is not allowed.

M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464.[17]

The court has also affirmed that public resources cannot be used for private advantage, ordering the demolition of a shopping complex that encroached on a public park in the name of Radhey Shyam Sahu.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India 1996 SCC (3) 212.[18]

Polluting industries were ordered to rectify groundwater and soil contamination, but the restoration of ecological worth was stressed more than the payment.

Doon Valley Case (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP) (1987) Supp SCC 487.[19]

Taking priority over short-term economic gains, the Supreme Court placed an order of halt to limestone mining in the ecologically vulnerable Doon Valley for long-term ecological sustainability.

Kumaraswamy v. State of Karnataka AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2576. [20]

The Karnataka High Court decided against a proposed construction project near a protected forest region, citing infringement of environmental clearance standards and the need to safeguard biodiversity. This ruling underlined the significance of environmental impact evaluations before project approvals.

Critical Analysis

Position in U.K.

The Environment Act 2021 established the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) as an independent body. The OEP will assess environmental performance and enforce environmental law. Additionally, it permits the government to establish legally binding environmental goals. The OEP acts as a watchdog to make sure environmental laws are followed and to hold the government responsible for achieving its environmental objectives.

India has a specialist tribunal for environmental disputes as well as a more comprehensive body of laws that address certain environmental challenges. The UK, on the other hand, has concentrated more on establishing goals and monitoring environmental legislation.

Position in U.S.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is important for setting and maintaining environmental standards in the US’s federal system. The EPA and other federal agencies have significant power to enforce laws. They can impose fines, penalties, and even criminal charges for violations. While India’s approach may differ, US environmental laws often emphasize public involvement in decision-making. There are concerns that India might prioritize national security over environmental protection more than the US does.

Position in Europe:

Even though they are changing, India’s environmental laws and regulations differ significantly from those in Europe. India’s approach often relies on reacting to issues and depends on courts to address environmental problems. In contrast, the EU has a more developed and detailed system, especially in areas like sustainability reporting and enforcement.

Recent Developments:

In April 2025, it was announced that the Environment (Construction and Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025, would be implemented. In managing this kind of waste, these regulations seek to enhance waste management procedures and encourage sustainability. They will go into effect on April 1, 2026, and will supersede the 2016 regulations. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for waste from construction and demolition is introduced by the regulations. Additionally, they set up an online portal to monitor waste management.

The Wildlife Protection Act:

Enhancing protection for endangered species and adhering to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) are the goals of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021. The bill suggests streamlining wildlife schedules, incorporating Wildlife Management Plans into the Act, and establishing Standing Committees within State Boards of Wildlife.

Management of End-of-Life Vehicles:

January 2025 saw the release of the Environment Protection (End-of-Life Vehicles) Rules, 2025, which will go into effect on April 1st of the same year. In order to manage end-of-life vehicles responsibly, these regulations specify the obligations of manufacturers, registered owners, collection centers, scrapping facilities, and automated testing stations.

Other Notable Developments:

There has been recent development on the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021. Regarding their possible influence on regulatory authority and environmental safeguards, there is some debate. The 1991 program to promote eco-friendly products and assist the Life initiative has been replaced by the Eco-mark Rules, which were announced by the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEF & CC). Goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in energy-intensive industries are suggested by the Draft Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025. To make the approval process for industrial facilities easier, guidelines for reducing pollution of the air and water have been released. The necessity of rigorous implementation of environmental protection measures has been emphasized in the Supreme Court’s handling of environmental matters, including those pertaining to the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

Suggestions:

Executive and Legislative Action to Supplement Judicial Activism;

The legislature and executive branch should be in charge of proactive environmental governance by enacting comprehensive laws that take into account the changing environmental issues of the twenty-first century, like climate change and sustainable urbanization. It comprises enacting legislation emphasizing the push for renewable energy, climate-resilient infrastructure, and a circular economy. Instead, by filling in legal loopholes, revising antiquated legislation, or making sure environmental standards match those of other nations, such as the Paris Agreement, the legislature can support judicial activism. Comprehensive regulations on carbon emissions, water conservation, and waste management should present a new challenge. The executive should prioritize the creation and implementation of policies through his ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, in order to successfully implement environmental governance. Coordination between the federal and state governments is necessary to sustain environmental issues at the local and national levels. Then, public-private partnerships can be investigated to finance or promote conservation and green technology projects like waste management and renewable energy.

Conclusion:

Through the development of principles, case decisions, and PIL culture, the Indian court has emerged as a significant player in environmental management in recent decades.

People like M.C. Mehta could be able to illustrate the need for legal action in the contemporary world, where issues like pollution prevention and the preservation of important natural and cultural-historical monuments come up. Nonetheless, a number of restrictions and lost chances are noted. Overconfidence in administrative actions and findings, corresponding differences in court decisions, procedures that erode environmental protection standards, and reliance on the courts to address environmental errors imply a methodical need for this kind of adjustment. These difficulties show how important it is to advance an effective, integrated, and participatory approach to environmental governance in which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all actively participate but in order to create good environmental laws, put them into effect, and adopt sustainable development best practices, these reforms require a unified framework.

Therefore, the advancements made in the field of environmental conservation are compelling enough to indicate that more will follow. However, there are numerous obstacles in the way of the goal that can and should be overcome.

This article has argued and demonstrated that India may take the lead in a more sustainable future by fostering a culture of environmental accountability that upholds the rights of both the people and the planet. In the end, protecting the environment is not only required by law but also by morality for a community that aspires to coexist peacefully with the natural world.

Reference(S):

[1] Charan Lal Sahu etc. v. Union of India & ors 1990 AIR 1480

[2] Subhash kumar v. State of Bihar 1991 SCR (1) 5

[3] M.C. Mehta v Union of India & ors. 1987 SCR (1) 819

[4] Vellore citizen welfare forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

[5] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388

[6] Rural litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 2426

[7] Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corp Hyderabad Case AIR 1987 AP 171

[8] Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand Case 1981 SCR (1) 97

[9] Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & ors. (2000) 10 SCC 664

[10] Samit Mehta v. Union of India MANU/GT/0104/2016

[11] Arjun Gopal v. Union of India 2019 (13) SCC 52

[12] Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590

[13] N. Godavarman Thirumulad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267

[14] P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62

[15] Sterlite Copper Plant Case 2013 (4) SCC 575

[16] Abhilash Textiles v. Rajkot Municipal Corp. AIR 1988 GUJ 57

[17] M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464.

[18] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India 1996 SCC (3) 212

[19] Doon Valley Case (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP) (1987) Supp SCC 487

[20] Kumaraswamy v. State of Karnataka AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2576

Authored By: Charu Seth

Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune

Related Posts

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply