23. Role of Judiciary

• The Indian Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a transformative role in shaping the contours of environmental protection in the country.
• Through judicial activism, expansive interpretation of constitutional provisions, and landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has positioned itself as the guardian of environmental justice.

Constitutional Framework and Judicial Mandate

1. The judiciary’s environmental role derives primarily from Article 21 (Right to Life), which the Supreme Court has expansively interpreted to include the Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment.
2. Article 48-A (Directive Principle of State Policy) places an obligation on the state to protect and improve the environment.
3. Article 51-A(g) (Fundamental Duty) imposes a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.
4. The courts have linked these provisions, establishing a constitutional commitment to environmental preservation as an aspect of human rights.

Role of the Supreme Court in Environmental Protection

1. The Supreme Court’s environmental jurisprudence evolved primarily through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed under Articles 32 and 226.
2. The Court acted not only as an adjudicator but as a policy-framer, issuing directions, guidelines, and orders with quasi-legislative impact.
3. Through several landmark rulings, the Court has advanced doctrines such as polluter pays, precautionary principle, public trust, and sustainable development.

Key Judicial Principles Developed

1. Polluter Pays Principle –

• Established in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), this doctrine mandates that polluters bear the costs of preventing and remedying environmental harm.

2. Precautionary Principle –

• Emphasized that lack of scientific certainty is no excuse for delaying preventive measures when there are threats to the environment.

3. Public Trust Doctrine –

• Formulated in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), where the state is seen as a trustee of natural resources, obligated to maintain them for public use.

4. Sustainable Development –

• Balance between economic growth and environmental conservation, evolved through various judgments such as Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000).

5. Absolute Liability Principle –

• Formulated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986), where industries engaged in hazardous activities are held absolutely liable for any harm caused.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Environmental Protection

1. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) –

• Known as the Doon Valley Mining Case, the Supreme Court ordered closure of limestone quarries that caused deforestation and soil erosion, introducing the concept of sustainable development.

2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case, 1987) –

• Directed closure or regulation of industries polluting the Ganga River, leading to enforcement of the polluter pays principle.

3. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) –

• Declared that the right to pollution-free water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21.

4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) –

• Chemical industries in Rajasthan were held liable for toxic waste discharge, reinforcing the polluter pays principle.

5. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) –

• Recognized sustainable development as part of Indian law and introduced precautionary and polluter pays principles.

6. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) –

• The Court invoked the public trust doctrine, holding the government accountable for leasing protected riverbed land for private use.

7. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) –

• Emphasized the principle of sustainable development and held that development must not come at the cost of environmental destruction.

8. M. K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) –

• The Supreme Court recognized the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21.

9. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case) –

• Directed conversion of Delhi’s public transport fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG), significantly improving air quality.

10. T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997–present) –

• A continuing mandamus where the Court monitored forest conservation, leading to restrictions on deforestation and mining in forest areas.

Role of the Judiciary in Controlling Environmental Pollution

1. The judiciary acts as a guardian of environmental rights by ensuring that industrialization and urbanization do not compromise ecological balance.
2. Courts have empowered citizens through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to challenge environmental violations by industries and government bodies.
3. Judicial monitoring has ensured periodic compliance reports from pollution control boards and government authorities, ensuring continuous oversight.
4. In several cases, courts imposed compensatory costs and fines on polluting industries and directed remediation projects using the funds collected.
5. The judiciary has played a major role in enforcing air, water, and waste management laws, directing closure or regulation of polluting units and vehicular emissions.

Institutional Developments through Judicial Initiatives

1. The establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010 was a result of consistent judicial recommendations for specialized environmental courts.
2. The NGT serves as a fast-track tribunal for environmental matters, reducing the burden on higher courts and ensuring timely justice.
3. Supreme Court’s proactive intervention has also influenced policy formation, compelling the government to strengthen frameworks like the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Air and Water Acts.

Judicial Activism and Environmental Governance

1. The Supreme Court’s involvement reflects a trend of judicial activism, wherein courts proactively address environmental issues even in the absence of explicit legislation.
2. The courts have used continuing mandamus—keeping cases open for monitoring compliance—to ensure effective enforcement of environmental orders.
3. Major interventions included bans on illegal sand mining, regulation of hazardous waste, and implementation of waste segregation systems.

Impact and Achievements of Judicial Intervention

1. Environmental awareness and accountability have increased significantly due to active judicial oversight.
2. The doctrine of environmental intergenerational equity is now embedded in India’s legal fabric, emphasizing sustainability for future generations.
3. Through landmark rulings, the Court has compelled policy shifts, technological modernization, and industry regulation to minimize pollution.
4. Internationally, India’s environmental jurisprudence is recognized as one of the most progressive, particularly for integrating fundamental rights with environmental protection.

Challenges and Limitations

1. Despite strong judicial directives, implementation and enforcement remain weak due to bureaucratic inertia and political resistance.
2. Many judicial orders face delayed compliance, especially in cases involving industrial pollution and urban waste.
3. There exists a conflict between developmental imperatives and environmental preservation, leading to selective enforcement of green judgments.
4. The judiciary’s increasing activism has raised debates regarding separation of powers, as courts often assume executive functions.

Conclusion

• The Indian Judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, has been a sentinel of environmental justice.
• Through its evolving jurisprudence, the Court has transformed the right to a healthy environment into a constitutional guarantee.
• Landmark doctrines—Polluter Pays, Precautionary Principle, Public Trust, and Sustainable Development—have become foundational to India’s environmental governance system.
• Although enforcement challenges remain, the judiciary continues to serve as an indispensable pillar in the national effort to combat environmental degradation and pollution.
• Its actions underscore the vision that a clean environment is not charity, but a constitutional right of every citizen.

Word Count - 1100