The traditional rule of Locus Standi that a petition can be filed under Article 32 of the Indian constitution by only a person whose fundamental right has been infringed has an exception called Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Public Interest Litigation is a concept taken from the constitution of the United States which is carried out to protect the interest of the public at large.
This concept of PIL is the result of exceptional efforts of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P. N. Bhagwati that opened the doors of the apex court for every Indian in the late 1970s. During the post-emergency period when political circumstances were changing, analytical press coverage additionally began to uncover frightful governmental lawlessness gained the attention of social activists, lawyers, public-spirited individuals, and judges. Justice Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer recognized and acknowledged the possibility and opportunity to provide justice to the poor, socially, and economically backward and exploited people who were unable to reach court for the relief.
Gradually PIL emerged as a beneficial tool in the hands of lawyers, social activists and media persons. This trend shows a contrast between the customary and modern justice system where the modern judiciary is also performing administrative judicial role. In S. P. Gupta and Ors. v. President of India and Ors.[1] the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has firmly established the rule regarding the Public Interest Litigation. The Court held that any member of the public having sufficient interest can approach the court for enforcing the constitutional or legal rights of other persons and redressal of a common grievance. Speaking for the majority Justice Bhagwati stated that: “Where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of the violation of any constitutional or legal right and such person or determinate class of people is by reason of poverty, helplessness of disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction or order writ in the High Court under Article 226 or in case of breach of any fundamental right to this Court under Article 32”.
The higher judiciary in India has played a pivotal role in the protection of the environment through Public Interest Litigation. PIL provides a wider interpretation of the right to equality, life, and personality which is guaranteed under part 3 of the constitution. It very obvious that nature and inanimate objects cannot represent themselves in judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court, since the late 1970s, has allowed any member of the public, having sufficient interest, to initiate a legal process to ensure the protection and improvement of the environment through Public Interest Litigation.
There are various important judgments which depict the role of PIL in Indian Judiciary on environment protection:
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand and Ors[2]: In this case, the issue of sanitation came before the Supreme Court under section 133 Crpc. Here the Supreme Court recognized that the Right to clean and Healthy environment and Right to Protection against nuisance is an inalienable right under Right to Life. Therefore the Court addressed the problem of deterioration of the urban environment due to poor sewage and sanitation schemes.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.[3]: In this case, the Supreme Court for the first time opened the door of Article 21 and explicitly mentioned that Right to Life covers the Right to Clean and Healthy Environment. This case was based on the concern raised by the residents of Doon Valley who filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against illegal limestone quarrying. This mining was being done in a way that caused disturbance to the ecological diversity and beauty of the Mussorie Hills and Doon Valley. The Supreme Court hereby directed to stop the illegal quarrying in Mussorie Hills
No description regarding the environment is complete without mentioning the work of Advocate M.C. Mehta who has extensively contributed to the development of environmental jurisprudence in India.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[4] (also known as Oleum gas leak case): This stands as a very important case in the history of Public Interest Litigation as in this case the then Chief Justice of India Justice P. N. Bhagwati laid down the principle of absolute liability. Advocate M.C. Mehta filed the PIL for the people victimized due to leakage of gas from the Sriram Fertilizers factory in 1986. The Supreme Court held the company absolutely liable an ordered the management to pay the compensation to victims of the gas leak incident.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[5]: In this case, advocate Mehta filed a PIL for the preservation of River Ganga against the industrial pollution being caused by the industrial tanneries in Kanpur. Justice E. N. Venkatramaih observed that “an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary setup plant cannot be permitted to continue in existence”. Therefore Supreme Court directed the State Pollution Control Board to ensure that proper pollution control devices and effluent treatment plant are installed in the respective industries and industries which do not comply with the direction of Supreme Court the Pollution Control Board can authorize its power to close such industries.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[6]: In this case, M. C. Mehta filed a writ petition to protect the Taj Mahal. This monument, one among the Seven Wonders of the World, had been facing the threats due to refineries situated in Mathura as well as bricks kilns industries around the city of Agra. Here the Supreme ordered that the refineries and the brick kilns industries must use the pollution control devices and it also ordered to introduce ‘no vehicle zone’ in the vicinity of the Taj Mahal and strictly instructed that vehicles of VIP should also be not permitted within 500 meters radius area of the monument.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[7]: In this case, the apex court strictly ordered that all brick kiln units within the vicinity of 20 km. of the Taj Mahal should be closed to protect the beauty of the Taj Mahal and Bharatpur Birds Sanctuary.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: In this case again a PIL was filed by M.C. Mehta against the excess pollution caused due to vehicles in Delhi. The Supreme Court held that such Air pollution caused by vehicular emission violates Article 21 and directed all commercial vehicles operating in Delhi to switch to CNG fuel for safeguarding the health of people.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: Another important case of PIL in which the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to take steps and spread information and knowledge through audiovisual media and introduce the environment as a compulsory subject in every educational institute.
References:
[1] AIR 1981 SC 298
[2] 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
[3] 1989 AIR 594, 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 537
[4] AIR 1987 SC 1086
[5] 1988 AIR 1115
[6] (2000) 10 SCC 551
[7] (2001) 9 SCC 235
0 Comments