public interest litigation

1. ROLE OF P.I.L.
INENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION IN INDIA

2. INTRODUCTION
• Environment plays a vital part in human life and in the development
of society. With advancement in technology and rapid
industrialization, environment is subjected to massive threat. It
also has resulted in irreparable damage. To tackle this problem,
India has enacted numerous legislations like the Air Act, Water Act,
Biodiversity Act, etc. However, the most sought after remedy seems
to be Public Interest Litigation (PIL) through which the Indian
Environmental Jurisprudence has attained a different stature.
• PILs act as a mechanism for the protection of public interest in
India where citizen suits and class action suits are not available. The
seeds of the concept of PIL were initially sown in India by Krishna
Iyer J. in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai
and further in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v Union of
India he said, "Law, as I conceive it, is social auditor and this
audit function can be put into action when someone with real
public interest ignites the jurisdiction".

3. • PIL may be introduced in a court of law by the court itself (suo motu),
rather than the aggrieved party or another third party. For the exercise of
the court's jurisdiction, it is unnecessary for the victim of the violation of his
or her rights to personally approach the court. In PIL, the right to file suit is
given to a member of the public by the court. It can be filed by any public
spirited individual, institution or non-governmental organisations. Majority
of the environment cases, filed since 1985 as writ petitions seem to be
brought about by individuals acting on pro bono basis. Public Interest
Litigation has resulted into a departure from the proof of injury approach.
PILs may be accepted under article 32 in the Supreme Court and 226 in the
High Court.
• The concept of PIL is in consonance with the objects enshrined in Article
39A of our Constitution to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the
help of law. The Indian Judiciary has used PIL as a weapon to deliver
justice especially in environment related cases where Article 21 was
interpreted in a new light wherein right to wholesome environment was
included under right to life and personal liberty. Hence environmental
protection, which was previously a fundamental duty under article 51(A),
became a fundamental right under article 21. Also article 21 has been an
instrument to enforce various international conventions which form part of
soft law.

4. SOME IMPORTANT DECISIONS:
• HEALTH AND SANITATION:
(i) LK Kulwal v State of Rajasthan and ors: A writ petition was filed by the
petitioner asking the court to issue directions to the state to perform its
obligatory duties. The petitioner invoked Fundamental Rights and the
Directives Principles of State Policy and brought to the fore the acute
sanitation problem in Jaipur which, it claimed as hazardous to the life of the
citizens of Jaipur. The Court held that maintenance of health, preservation of
sanitation and environment falls within the purview of Article 21 of the
Constitution. It was held that it was the statutory duty of the municipality to
clean the filth and garbage. It is the primary duty of the municipal council to
remove filth, rubbish, noxious odour or any offensive matter, and financial
inability cannot be plea. Six months’ time was given to complete the job. A
committee was constituted to inspect the implementation of the judgment.
(ii) B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India: This case relates to ecology non-
performance of mandatory duties of Municipal Corporation, like garbage
clearance, scavenging and cleaning Delhi city. Supreme Court held that non
availability of funds, machinery, etc. cannot be pleaded as non-performance of
statutory obligation. Direction was issued clean Delhi city every day and also
appoint Municipal magistrates for trial of offence under Corporation Act.

5. WATER POLLUTION WITH RESPECT TO
RIVERS:
• GANGES CASE: In this case, the Supreme Court ordered to close
down about 157 tanneries and 191 other industries in U.P., Bengal
and Bihar. It also ordered more than 5000 industries located in the
Ganga basin to set up effluent treatment plants and pollution
control devices. Pollution of water in the river Ganga was of the
highest degree at Kanpur, and a large extent of misery, sickness and
death due to infectious diseases arose out of water supplies. The
petitioner filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation
against the public nuisance.
• Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India: In this
case the Supreme Court allowed standing to a public spirited social
organization for protecting the health of residents of Vellore. The
tanneries situated around river Palar in Vellore Tamil Nadu were
discharging toxic chemicals and other effluents in the river, thereby
posing a threat to the health of the residents. The Court asked the
tanneries to close their business.

6. AIR POLLUTION:
• VEHICULAR POLLUTION CASE: In a petition filed for reducing vehicular
pollution in the country, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to
provide lead free petrol to four metropolitan cities by April 1995 and petrol
with a lead content of 0.15g/l in the entire country by December 1996.
Automobile manufacturers were ordered to equip new vehicles to ply on lead
free petrol. The Union Government was also asked to convert all government
vehicles and public transport to lead free petrol. Delhi has become the only city
in the world to have all public transport operating on Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG).
• TAJ MAHAL CASE: The Supreme Court banned coal-based industries from
functioning in the Taj Trapezium to save the Taj Mahal and other historical
monuments in Agra. The industries were asked to either switch to gas fuel or
relocate outside the Taj Trapezium. The State was directed to develop a green
belt around the Taj Mahal and provide uninterrupted power supply in Agra to
curb the use of diesel generators. The Supreme Court of India banned the use
of coal by industries in the Taj Trapezium and ordered the planting of more
than 200,000 trees surrounding the Taj Mahal. It is said that for this case Mr.
M.C Mehta made several appearances.

7. GAS LEAKS:
• M.C. Mehta and Another vs. Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer
Industries and others: On 4.12.1985, there was a leakage of oleum
gas resulting in the death of an Advocate in the Tees Hazari Court and
injuries to several others. The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, an Advocate of
Supreme Court filed public interest litigation petition in the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, in his
petition requested the court to direct the Government to take
necessary steps to avoid such leakages from the industries engaged in
dangerous and hazardous manufacturing processes. He prayed to
shift location of the company. The Supreme Court admitted the
petition and evolved the principle of 'Absolute Liability’ and ordered
the Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries to pay petitioner
Rs.10.000 towards, costs.
• Law Society of India v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore
Ltd. A PIL was instituted challenging the operation of a 10,000
tonne Ammonia storage tank by the first respondents as being
dangerous. It was contended that the Tank regularly causes air
pollution and is thus causing serious damage to the environment. If a
leak was to develop in the plant, it could exterminate all living things
in the Cochin. Finally an order was passed saying this storage violated
art 21 and 3 months were given to empty it.

8. NOISE POLLUTION:
• Church of God (Full Gospel) v. State of Tamil Nadu: In this case the
Supreme Court came down heavily on the practice of beating drums and use
of loud speaker in places of worship. It was held that no religion prescribed
this practice and observed that “In our view in the civilized society in the
name of religious activities which disturb old and infirm persons, students
or children having their sleeps in the early hours or during day time or
other perform carrying other activity cannot be permitted. It should not be
forgotten that babies in the neighbourhoods are also entitled to enjoy their
natural right of sleeping in peaceful atmosphere. Aged, sick people afflicted
by psychic disturbances as well as children up to the age of six years are
considered to be sensitive to noise. Their rights are also required to be
honoured”.
• In Re. Noise Pollution, the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of
noise pollution. It was of the opinion that there is need for creating general
awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Particularly, in
our country the people generally lack consciousness of the ill effects which
noise pollution creates and how the society including they themselves stand
to benefit by preventing generation and emission of noise pollution.

9. CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS:
• Current environmental degradation and the threat for further
deterioration and irreparable damage is a matter of great concern to
every single resident of this nation. While the legislative framework
is being strengthened progressively, the responsible citizens of this
country who are concerned with the nation’s welfare and every
individual’s well-being become proactive and move the courts to
avert damages to the environment. At the same time some frivolous
petitions are also filed by people for their undue advantage. This is
possible because of the freedom provided to them by this world’s
largest democratic nation. The initiatives taken by the social
activists who take up PIL as the remedy for these issues have to be
applauded. However, instead of leaving this grave problem to a few
responsible citizens to move court for the welfare of everyone in the
country, it will be better if all of us fully realize the consequences of
environmental degradation and behave responsibly in every
possible manner to thwart this problem.

10. PRESENTATION PREPARED BY:
• ANIRUDH PRATAP SINGH
• SHRADDHA CHAUHAN
• ROOPANSHI VIRANG
• NAVYA AIRACHIA