Role of Indian Judiciary in the evolution of environmental jurisprudence

In one minute

Much of Indian environmental law was built by the Supreme Court, case by case. The Court read a right to a clean environment into Article 21. It relaxed who may sue, created new principles, and supervised the government for years.

The key doctrines are absolute liability, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, sustainable development and the public trust doctrine. Parliament later put some of them into statute, such as section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act.

Legal provision

• Article 21: protection of life and personal liberty, read to include a healthy environment.
• Articles 32 and 226: the writ powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
• Articles 48A and 51A(g): the State's directive and the citizen's duty on the environment, used as support.
• Article 142: the Supreme Court's power to do complete justice, used for directions in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar.
• Section 20, NGT Act, 2010: the Tribunal must apply sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.

Meaning and definition

Environmental jurisprudence is the body of rules and principles that courts have developed to protect the environment. In India the courts filled gaps where statutes were silent or weakly enforced. They did so mainly through writ petitions.

• Judicial role in environmental law
  • RightsPollution-free water and air under Article 21 (Subhash Kumar).
  • ProcedureLetters, PIL, expert committees, continuing mandamus (Rural Litigation Kendra, Godavarman).
  • PrinciplesAbsolute liability, precaution, polluter pays, public trust (Oleum, Vellore, Kamal Nath).
  • Balancing and limitsSustainable development and proportionality (Narmada, Alembic).

Detailed explanation

Step 1: a right to a clean environment

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985), the Court closed the most harmful limestone quarries and read the right to a healthy environment into Article 21. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), it held that life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air. Residents can enforce this right to a wholesome environment under Article 32 or Article 226.

Step 2: new procedures

The Court accepted letters as petitions and let public-spirited persons sue, as in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) (1988). This is public interest litigation. It appointed expert committees. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, it kept a petition open for decades under continuing mandamus.

In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980), the Court held that a municipality cannot plead lack of funds against its statutory duty to remove a public nuisance. It revised the Magistrate's order into a workable scheme.

Step 3: liability principles

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (the Oleum gas leak case, decided 20 December 1986), the Court held that a hazardous enterprise is absolutely liable for harm. It allowed no exceptions such as Act of God. Compensation had to match the size and financial capacity of the enterprise. This is absolute liability. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) followed it for toxic waste at Bichhri.

Step 4: environmental principles

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court held that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of Indian law. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) (1999), it said the burden falls on the developer to prove the activity is environmentally benign. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996), it applied the public trust doctrine to cancel a lease of riverbank land.

Step 5: balancing development

The Court treats development and environment as partners under sustainable development. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000), a 2:1 majority let the dam continue with resettlement conditions. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) (1996), industries near the Taj had to switch to gas or relocate. In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati (2020), the Court set aside a closure as disproportionate and required deposits.

Step 6: duties of the State and new rights

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) — CNG buses in Delhi (2002), the Court held that public health has priority over the profit of industry. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), it held that Jallikattu violates the animal cruelty law and asked Parliament to raise animals' statutory rights to constitutional rights. In 2023 a Constitution Bench upheld the 2017 Tamil Nadu amendment that permits Jallikattu and disagreed with the 2014 decision. In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019), it suspended an airport clearance for failures at every stage.

Exceptions and special rules

Limits on the Court's role

The Narmada majority said a policy decision taken after long expert study is mainly for the executive. The Court's task is to check the safeguards. Years of supervision also raise a separation of powers question, which is a point for analysis in an exam.

Genuine public interest

Subhash Kumar shows the limit. A private grievance presented as PIL is dismissed.

Statutes now carry the principles

Section 20 of the NGT Act makes the principles binding on the Tribunal. A case now often starts at the Tribunal, with an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Don't confuse: the four judge-made doctrines

Doctrine	Leading case	What it does
Absolute liability	Oleum gas leak case (1986)	Hazardous enterprise liable with no exception; compensation matches its capacity
Precautionary principle	Vellore (1996); Nayudu (1999)	Acts before harm is proved; burden on the developer
Polluter pays	Vellore (1996); Bichhri (1996)	The polluter bears the cost of repair and compensation
Public trust	Kamal Nath (1996)	The State holds natural resources in trust for the public

Common mistakes

• Writing that Narmada was unanimous. It was decided 2:1.
• Saying Subhash Kumar succeeded. The principle was stated, but the petition was dismissed.
• Treating Nayudu as a final decision on the licence dispute. It was a reference to an expert body.
• Saying Bichhri awarded damages. The Court directed recovery of the cost of repair and left villagers to sue.
• Giving 1987 as the decision date of Oleum. It was decided on 20 December 1986 and reported in 1987.

Apply it

Problem

A tannery's effluent has polluted the wells of 20 villages. Experts disagree on how much harm the effluent causes. The tannery says it cannot afford to treat the effluent.

Issue

Which judge-made principles apply?

Rule

The precautionary principle puts the burden on the industry. The polluter pays principle makes it bear the cost of repair and compensation.

Application

Doubt about the extent of harm is no reason to delay action. Cost is no excuse, since a statutory duty cannot be avoided for lack of funds.

Conclusion

The court can order treatment plants and repair at the tannery's cost, as in Vellore.

Leading case laws

• Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand

  Facts. Ward 12, New Road, Ratlam had open drains, no latrines for the poor and foul liquid from an alcohol plant.

  Principle. Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a mandatory duty on the Magistrate. Lack of funds is no defence for the Municipality.

  Why it matters. Courts can force statutory bodies to act on sanitation.

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case)

  Facts. Oleum gas leaked from Shriram's plant at Kirti Nagar, Delhi on 4 December 1985.

  Principle. A hazardous enterprise is absolutely liable, with no exceptions. Compensation matches its size and capacity.

  Why it matters. It created absolute liability in India.

• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

  Facts. Tanneries in five Tamil Nadu districts polluted the Palar river and land.

  Principle. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of Indian law.

  Why it matters. It is the source of the two principles.

• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

  Facts. A motel on the Beas river held leased forest land. The Court took notice of a news item.

  Principle. The public trust doctrine is part of Indian law. The lease was cancelled.

  Why it matters. It limits the State's power over fragile resources.

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

  Facts. A petition on illegal felling near the Nilgiris became a nationwide inquiry.

  Principle. "Forest" has its dictionary meaning. The Court supervises through continuing mandamus.

  Why it matters. It shows the Court as a long-term supervisor.

• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

  Facts. The Sardar Sarovar Dam displaced many people.

  Principle. By 2:1, the dam could continue with resettlement conditions. Bharucha J. dissented.

  Why it matters. It shows sustainable development and judicial restraint.

• Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja

  Facts. The Animal Welfare Board challenged Jallikattu and bullock-cart races.

  Principle. They violate the animal cruelty law. The Court asked Parliament to raise animals' rights to constitutional rights.

  Why it matters. It widens environmental concern to animal rights.

• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India

  Facts. The NGT upheld clearance for an airport at Mopa, Goa. Two appeals reached the Supreme Court.

  Principle. The process failed at each stage. The Court suspended the clearance and directed the expert appraisal committee to revisit it.

  Why it matters. It sets the standard for clearance and for the Tribunal's review.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Oleum (decided December 1986): absolute liability, no exceptions.
• Vellore (1996): precautionary and polluter pays principles.
• Kamal Nath (1996): public trust doctrine.
• Narmada (2000): 2:1, sustainable development.
• Section 20, NGT Act: principles now statutory.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Right to wholesome environment
• Right to development
• Writ Jurisdiction