Environmental degradation poses one of the most pressing challenges of our time, impacting not only the natural world but also human health, livelihoods, and socio-economic stability. In the context of India, a country experiencing rapid industrialization, urbanization, and population growth, the preservation and protection of the environment are of paramount importance. Recognizing the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding environmental rights and ensuring ecological balance, the Supreme Court of India has emerged as a pivotal institution in shaping environmental jurisprudence within the country.

The Indian Constitution lays down a solid foundation for environmental governance by enshrining principles of environmental protection and sustainable development. Articles 48A and 51A (g) mandate the state and citizens, respectively, to protect and improve the environment, underscoring the constitutional imperative for environmental conservation. These provisions empower the judiciary to intervene in matters concerning environmental degradation and ecological preservation, thereby establishing the legal framework for environmental jurisprudence in India.

The Supreme Court's role as the guardian of environmental rights and the interpreter of environmental laws becomes crucial. Through its interpretative powers and judicial activism, the Court has expanded the scope of environmental jurisprudence, addressing a wide array of environmental issues ranging from air and water pollution to deforestation and climate change. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and suo-motu interventions have become instrumental tools through which the Court ensures the enforcement of environmental laws and holds state and non-state actors accountable for environmental degradation.

Constitutional Framework
The concept of welfare state developed in the 19th century, and our constitution makers laid emphasis on the adoption of the same. Though, right to environment not recognised as a right initially, was later included in the constitution through the 42nd Amendment to the constitution.

Article 49-A states: "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." The said amendment imposed a responsibility on every citizen in the form of Fundamental Duty.

Article 51-A (g) which deals with Fundamental Duties of the citizens states: "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures." Thus, protection and improvement of natural environment is the duty of the State (Article 48-A) and every citizen (Article 51- A (g)).

The Courts was given powers under articles 32 and 226 to interpret the provisions of the constitution. Art 32 and 226 provide for issuance of prerogative and other writs have been invoked to grant reliefs. Art 32 enables an individual to approach the Supreme Court directly for infringement of a fundamental right. Art 226 empowers a High Court to issue a writ for violation of a fundamental right or any other legal right. Further, the rulings with regard to the expansion of the principle of locus standi for invoking these provisions were applied to protect against environmental degradation.

Judicial Activism
Development of Environment Law in India would not have been possible without the evolution of Public Interest Litigation or emergence of Judicial Activism. Around 1980s, the judges began to take more active role in shaping the law and public policy. Broader interpretation was given to the articles of the constitution to bring out the maximum benefit it could for the people. The court assumed its responsibility under article 142 of the constitution, Power to do Complete Justice, and expanded the ambit of judicial intervention through mode of judicial activism.

The first public interest litigation case was brought in 1976 in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Others[1], Justice Krishna Iyer's historic decision planted the seed for PIL litigation. Soon after, thanks to Justice Bhagwati's efforts, the PIL concept matured and developed to a significant level. PIL cases in India brought about change.

One of the most famous examples of judicial activism in India is the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[2]. The decision, in this case, marked a turning point in the evolution of judicial activism in India, since it was held to be a part of the basic structure. Since then, the Indian judiciary has become active in shaping the law and public policy, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[3], Javed v. State of Haryana[4], Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[5] and many more.

In the case of Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar[6], the court opined that "Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law."

Also, in the case of State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.[7], the court highlighted the importance of the public interest litigation and said, "The Courts' directions have immensely benefited marginalized sections of the society in a number of cases. It has also helped in protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife etc. etc. The court's directions to some extent have helped in maintaining probity and transparency in the public life."

Both these cases highlight the importance of Judicial Activism and the Public Interest Litigations in development of Environmental Law.

The Development of Environmental Jurisprudence Though Landmark Judgements
The Supreme Court of India has played a seminal role in the development and evolution of environmental law within the country. Through its expansive powers of judicial review and its commitment to upholding constitutional principles, the Court has emerged as a key institution in shaping environmental jurisprudence and promoting environmental sustainability.

The Supreme court in 1988 in the case of Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs State Of U.P[8], emphasized that preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected was a task which not only Governments but also every citizen had to undertake. It was a social obligation and every Indian citizen was reminded that it was his fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51 A(g) of the Constitution.

It was for the Government and the Nation - and not for the Court - to decide whether the deposits should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental considerations or the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It could perhaps be possible to exercise greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilization. On the basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the same.

In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh vs State Of U.P And Ors[9], the court expanded the ambit of article 21 and included anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws, that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to be taken recourse of Article 32 of the Constitution.

In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame[10], the court emphasised the need of man and the duty of court to recognise and protect it. It also laid importance of environment in a society by saying "The right to life is guaranteed in any civilised society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view.

For an animal, it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being, it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect- physical, mental and intellectual. The surplus urban-vacant land was directed to be used to provide shelter to the poor."

Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors[11]
The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court by way of public interest litigation alleging that the respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) were polluting the river Bokaro by discharging surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry as effluent from their washeries into river making the river water unfit for drinking and irrigation purposes thereby causing risk to the health of the people.

The court held that:
"Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art, 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life."

Thus, the court declared right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.

Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India & Others[12]
The court observed that while economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment.

"The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound principle in this case. The Court observed "We are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country".

The Court ruled that "Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on."

Consequently the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas.

The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors[13]
The case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India. This ruling was a significant step in emphasizing the 'Precautionary Principle' and 'Polluter Pays Principle' as essential elements of sustainable development in India's environmental law.

The 'Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum' submitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution, citing extensive environmental degradation and water pollution due to the unchecked discharge of untreated effluents by tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu into the Palar River.

The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.

The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land.

This Court defined "the precautionary principle" and the "polluter pays principle" as under:
"We are, however, of the view that "the precautionary principle" and "The polluter Pays" principle are essential features of "Sustainable Development". The "Precautionary Principle" in the context of the municipal law means:

1. Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
2. Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
3. The Onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.

In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.[14] it was declared that Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. The court held these rights as basic human rights known to any civilised society.

In A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Others[15], this Court quoted A. Fritsch, "Environmental Ethics: Choices for Concerned Citizens". The same is reproduced as under:

"The basic insight of ecology is that all living things exist in interrelated systems; nothing exists in isolation. The world system in weblike; to pluck one strand is to cause all to vibrate; whatever happens to one part has ramifications for all the rest. Our actions are not individual but social; they reverberate throughout the whole ecosystem".

"The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck."

The court emphasized on the need of development without sacrificing the environment.

In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.[16] the Court observed that sustainable development means the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In these matters, the required standard now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's " test.

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Others[17],
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that Articles 48A and 51-A(g) have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution.

"Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for "life", would be hazardous to "life" within the meaning of Article 21."

In the matter of enforcement of rights under Article 21, this Court, besides enforcing the provisions of the Acts referred to above, has also given effect to Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 and has held that if those rights are violated by disturbing the environment, it can award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for the victims who have suffered due to that disturbance.

In order to protect the "life", in order to protect "environment" and in order to protect "air, water and soil" from pollution, this Court, through its various judgments has given effect to the rights available, to the citizens and persons alike, under Article 21.

K.M. Chinnappa, T.N. Godavarman vs Union Of India And Ors[18]
Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution.

Highlighting the importance of Environment law it opined, Environmental law is an instrument to protect and improve the environment and to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. In view of the enormous challenges thrown by the industrial revolution, the legislatures throughout the world are busy in this exercise.

"Time has come for us to apply the constitutional "doctrine of proportionality" to the matters concerning environment as a part of the process of judicial review in contradistinction to merit review. It cannot be gainsaid that utilization of the environment and its natural resources has to be in a way that is consistent with principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity, but balancing of these equities may entail policy choices."

In M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors[19], the court opined, The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environments. There has been accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the statutory norms.

The most vital necessities, namely, air, water and soil, having regard to right of life under Article 21 cannot be permitted to be misused and polluted so as to reduce the quality of life of others.

In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Others[20], while maintaining the balance between economic development and environmental protection, the court observed as under:
"This, therefore, is the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in population together with the consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, filling up of lakes and the pollution of water resources and the very air that we breathe.

However there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other. "

Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors[21]
The court said:
"It is often felt that in the process of encouraging development the environment gets sidelined. However, with major threats to the environment, such as climate change, depletion of natural resources, the entrophication of water systems and biodiversity and global warming, the need to protect the environment has become a priority."

The harmonization of the two needs has led to the concept of sustainable development, so much so that it has become the most significant and focal point of environmental legislation and judicial decisions relating to the same. Sustainable development, simply put, is a process in which development can be sustained over generations. Brundtland Report defines 'sustainable development' as development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.

Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs. The Indian judiciary has time and again recognised this principle as being a fundamental concept of Indian law.

Thus, we can understand the development of the judicial mindset over the years and the expansion of its ambit in Indian Legal system.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India stands as a cornerstone in the edifice of environmental jurisprudence, having significantly shaped and evolved the legal landscape concerning environmental protection and sustainability. Through its role as an interpreter of constitutional mandates and statutory provisions, the Court has ensured that the nation's ecological heritage remains safeguarded for present and future generations by stressing on the principle of sustainable development.

By expanding the scope of Article 21 and by recognizing the intrinsic value of nature and the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment enshrined in the Constitution, the Court has not only underscored the importance of environmental protection but has also elevated it to the status of a constitutional right. Its unwavering commitment to upholding these principles has compelled governments and stakeholders to be more vigilant and accountable in their environmental stewardship.

Furthermore, the Court's proactive stance in enforcing environmental laws and regulations, often through innovative legal mechanisms such as PILs and suo-motu interventions, has catalyzed significant strides towards environmental justice and sustainability. By providing a platform for citizens to voice their concerns and seek redress for environmental grievances, the Court has democratized the environmental discourse and empowered communities to actively participate in decision-making processes affecting their surroundings.

Nevertheless, the journey towards environmental sustainability is an ongoing one, fraught with challenges and complexities. While the Supreme Court has laid down a robust legal framework and set precedents for environmental governance, much remains to be done in terms of implementation, enforcement, and adaptation to emerging environmental threats such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.

In essence, the Supreme Court's role in the development of environmental law extends far beyond the confines of the courtroom; it embodies a commitment to justice, equity, and the preservation of our planet's natural heritage. As custodians of environmental rights and responsibilities, we must heed the Court's clarion call for action and collectively strive towards a greener, cleaner, and more sustainable future for all.

Laws and Statutes:

1. The Constitution of India
2. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [29 OF 1986]
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [6 OF 1974]
4. The Air (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981 [14 OF 1981]

Reports:

• Indian Bar Association "Constitutional Provisions for The Protection of Environment With Relevant Case Laws" (2019)

Cases:

1. Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Others, 1976 (3) SCC 832
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1819
4. Javed v. State of Haryana, Writ Petition (civil) 302 of 2001
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011
6. Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 420
7. State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2550
8. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs State Of U.P., 1985 SCR (3) 169
9. Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh vs State Of U.P And Ors, 1990 SCR (3) 739
10. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, MANU/SC/0115/1990
11. Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India & Others, (1996) 5 SCC 281
12. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2715
13. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549
14. A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Others, (1999) 2 SCC 718
15. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 664
16. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Others, (2000) 6 SCC 213
17. K.M. Chinnappa, T.N. Godavarman vs Union Of India And Ors, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 724
18. M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors, Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985
19. Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Others, AIR 2004 SC 1834
20. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors, AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1489

Website:

1. Role of Judiciary in Environment Protection, India, available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/role-of-judiciary-in-environment-protection/ (last visited on April 10, 2024)
2. Environment law in India - an overview, India, available at: https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1999/11/environment-law-in-india-an-overview#:~:text=The Taj Trapezium case involved,be eliminated at any cost. (last visited on April 10, 2024)
3. Important Case Laws on Environmental Law, India, available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/important-case-laws-of-environmental-law/ (last visited on April 10, 2024)
4. Landmark Judgments on Environmental Protection, available at: https://legaldesire.com/15-landmark-judgments-on-environmental-protection/ (last visited on April 10, 2024)
5. Judicial Activism - Concept, Evolution, Significance and Criticism, India, available at: https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/judicial-activism (last visited on April 10, 2024)
6. PIL in India: Exploring Famous Cases, India, available at: https://vakilsearch.com/blog/examples-pil-india/ (last visited on April 10, 2024)
7. Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., India, available at: https://legalvidhiya.com/indian-council-for-enviro-legal-action-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors/ (last visited on April 10, 2024)

References:

1. 1976 (3) SCC 832
2. (1973) 4 SCC 225
3. 1979 AIR 1819
4. Writ Petition (civil) 302 of 2001
5. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011
6. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 420
7. AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2550
8. 1985 SCR (3) 169
9. 1990 SCR (3) 739
10. MANU/SC/0115/1990
11. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 420
12. (1996) 5 SCC 281
13. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2715
14. (1996) 2 SCC 549
15. (1999) 2 SCC 718
16. (2000) 10 SCC 664
17. (2000) 6 SCC 213
18. AIR 2003 Supreme Court 724
19. Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985
20. AIR 2004 SC 1834
21. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1489

Written By: Jayant Garg, A 4th Year Law Student From Faculty Of Law, JMI.