Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a powerful tool for enforcing environmental laws in India. PIL has started to have an impact on environmental law in the post industrial era. The influence started when there was no effective environmental protection legislation, which gradually led to public-spirited persons speaking for the environment. Before the 1980s, the locus standi in writ jurisdictions only applied to petitions filed by people who had experienced a violation of their protected legal rights or interests or were reasonably likely to do so. As a result, no one else was permitted to speak on behalf of a party who had been wronged because they would not have the locus standi necessary to file a petition.

However, the introduction of Public Interest Litigation and the reports of the Committee on Legal Aid, which was chaired by Justices P.N Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, led to a new advancement in the field of environment-focused jurisprudence. It allow individuals, groups, or NGOs to approach the judiciary for the protection of public interest, particularly when the fundamental rights of individuals or communities are at stake.

When a plaintiff seeks to enforce the legal or constitutional rights of an individual or group of individuals who find it difficult to approach the appellate courts for redress due to poverty, a disability, or being in a disadvantageous social or economic position, the PIL's more lenient procedure may be used. As a result, PIL is known as the tactical arm of the legal movement and simple "access to justice" for the restoration of the violated human rights of socially underprivileged groups.

Historical Development of Environmental Law in India

The development of environmental law in India is a complex and evolving process, reflecting the country's unique environmental challenges and socio-economic conditions. The trajectory of environmental law in India can be traced from ancient times through colonial rule to modern legislative and judicial initiatives.

1. Ancient and Medieval Periods
   • Cultural and Religious Foundations: Environmental consciousness has deep roots in India's ancient cultural and religious traditions. Sacred texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, and epics such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana emphasize the sanctity of nature and the need for its preservation. The principles of non-violence (ahimsa) and reverence for all life forms in Jainism and Buddhism further reinforced the idea of environmental stewardship.
   • Medieval Period: During the medieval period, rulers such as Emperor Ashoka promoted the protection of animals and forests, issuing edicts that are among the earliest recorded environmental regulations in India.
      
2. Colonial Era
   • Resource Exploitation: The British colonial period saw a shift towards the exploitation of India's natural resources for economic gain. The focus was on controlling and extracting resources such as timber, minerals, and wildlife.
   • Key Legislation:
     • Indian Forest Act, 1865: This Act marked the beginning of systematic forest management under British rule, focusing on revenue generation through the exploitation of forest resources.
     • Indian Forest Act, 1927: This Act consolidated previous laws and aimed at regulating the rights of the local population concerning forests, while primarily serving the colonial government's interests in timber and revenue.
        
3. Post-Independence Period
   • Early Years: After gaining independence in 1947, India did not initially prioritize environmental concerns. The focus was on industrialization and economic development.
   • Constitutional Provisions: The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, did not originally contain specific provisions for environmental protection. However, through amendments and judicial interpretation, environmental rights were gradually recognized. Notably:
     • 42nd Amendment (1976): Added Article 48A (Directive Principles) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties), emphasizing the state's responsibility to protect the environment and the citizen's duty to protect and improve the natural environment.

Meaning of PIL

A technique or method called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) focuses on the country's citizens. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism in India that allows individuals or groups to file a lawsuit in court not for their own personal interests, but to protect the interests of the public or a section of it.

PIL is intended to safeguard collective rights, especially when those affected are unable to represent themselves due to social, economic, or other disadvantages.

Unlike traditional litigation, where only the aggrieved party can seek redressal, PIL enables any public-spirited individual or organization to approach the court on behalf of those who are marginalized or whose rights are being violated. This form of litigation has been instrumental in addressing various issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and government accountability.

PILs are a judicial innovation and are not defined in any specific statute. Instead, they have been developed by the judiciary over time, particularly through landmark cases where the courts recognized the need to expand access to justice. Similarly, in the case of Janata Dal vs H.S. Choudhary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that lexically, the term "PIL" refers to a legal action initiated in a court of law to uphold a public or general interest when the general public or a specific class of the public has an interest (including a financial interest) that affects their legal rights or obligations.

Due to their many benefits, such as quick results, low court costs, lax procedural rules, and the wide range of investigative techniques available to courts like special committees, PILs are thought to be the most efficient as well as the most frequently used judicial tool to protect the environment.

Evolution of PIL in India

The evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India has been a transformative journey that expanded the scope of the judiciary and provided access to justice for marginalized and underrepresented sections of society.

1. Origins of PIL in India
   The concept of PIL in India was influenced by developments in the United States, where the judiciary began to entertain cases filed in the public interest, particularly during the civil rights movement. Indian jurists, particularly those on the Supreme Court, adapted this concept to suit the Indian context.
   
   PIL in India formally took shape in the late 1970s. The judiciary began to entertain petitions from individuals and organizations seeking to address social and environmental issues affecting large sections of the population. This period marked the shift from the traditional understanding of locus standi, which restricted legal standing to those directly affected by an issue, to a more inclusive approach where any public-spirited individual could file a petition on behalf of others.
    
2. Pioneering Cases
   In the case Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India,1980, the Court emphasized the need for greater flexibility in legal standing due to the increased risk of its abuse in the face of rising bureaucratic power. This led to an expanded interpretation of locus standi, aligning with the broader socio-economic justice movement.
   
   Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India was pioneered by Justice Krishna Iyer in the 1976 case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors. This case, which dealt with granting bonuses to workers in an industry, marked the beginning of PIL in India. The concept was further developed in National Federation of Railwaymen v. Union of India, where employees were granted the right to file writ petitions for resolving common grievances.

The first PIL in India was filed in 1979, focusing on the treatment of undertrial prisoners. In Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,1979, the PIL addressed the plight of thousands of prisoners in Bihar jails awaiting trial, leading to the release of over 40,000 undertrials. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21, covering "life" and "personal liberty."

In the case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors., heard by Justice P.N Bhagawati, according to a judgment, any member of society seeking compensation for the breach of their legal rights but unable to appear in court may use the Supreme Court's or High Court's Writ Jurisdiction. PIL was transformed into a potent tool for carrying out public duties by this judgement. As a result, any citizen may now approach the court to seek redress when the general public's interests are at risk. Even routine letters from people with a concern for the public were treated as writ petitions by Justice Bhagwati.

In the 1981 case of Anil Yadav & Ors v. State of Bihar & Anr, the Supreme Court of India uncovered severe police brutality, where around thirty-three individuals had acid thrown into their eyes by police at the Bhagalpur jail in Bihar. The Court strongly condemned the police's actions and ordered the Bihar government to transfer the victims to Delhi for medical treatment at the state's expense. The ruling emphasized that free legal representation is a fundamental right and an essential aspect of the right to life and personal liberty.

In the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Ors,1982 filed under Article 32, an organization advocating for the democratic rights of laborers working on Asiad projects approached the Supreme Court, alleging violations of labor laws. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, presiding over the case, clarified that a PIL is not merely about enforcing the rights of an individual against another party, as is typical in conventional litigation. Instead, it is a mechanism to protect the collective rights of a group of people whose fundamental rights have been violated.

Constitutional Provisions supporting PIL in Environmental Law

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has played a pivotal role in advancing environmental protection in India. The constitutional framework of India provides several provisions that support the use of PIL in environmental law, enabling the judiciary to safeguard environmental rights and ensure the protection of natural resources. These provisions empower the courts to intervene in environmental matters and provide a platform for citizens to advocate for environmental justice.

1. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
   Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary has expansively interpreted this article to include the right to a healthy environment as an integral part of the right to life. This interpretation has laid the foundation for environmental PILs in India. In landmark cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean and healthy environment.
   
   The Court emphasized that environmental pollution and degradation threaten the fundamental right to life and that it is the duty of the state to protect and preserve the environment for present and future generations. This broad interpretation of Article 21 has been the cornerstone of numerous environmental PILs, enabling citizens and environmental organizations to approach the courts to seek redress for environmental harm.
    
2. Article 48A: Directive Principles of State Policy
   Article 48A of the Constitution, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), mandates that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Although the DPSPs are not justiciable, they serve as guiding principles for the governance of the country and inform the judiciary's interpretation of laws. The Supreme Court and High Courts have often invoked Article 48A while deciding environmental PILs, using it to justify and reinforce their rulings.
   
   For instance, in the M.C. Mehta cases concerning the pollution of the Ganga River and industrial pollution in Delhi, the Court drew upon Article 48A to stress the state's obligation to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development. Article 48A, therefore, strengthens the constitutional basis for environmental protection and provides a normative framework that courts can rely on when adjudicating environmental PILs.
    
3. Article 51A(g): Fundamental Duties
   Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which outlines the fundamental duties of citizens, states that it is 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."While fundamental duties are not enforceable by law, they play a crucial role in shaping public consciousness and guiding the judiciary in interpreting environmental cases. The courts have used Article 51A(g) to emphasize that environmental protection is not just the responsibility of the state but also of every citizen. In cases like T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996), which dealt with forest conservation, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of Article 51A(g) in reinforcing the collective responsibility of the state and citizens to protect the environment. This provision supports the idea that environmental PILs are not just legal battles but also moral obligations that citizens and the state share.
    
4. Articles 32 and 226: Right to Constitutional Remedies
   Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution provide the legal framework for PILs. Article 32 grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
   
   These provisions are crucial for environmental PILs as they allow concerned citizens, NGOs, and other public-spirited individuals to approach the courts even when they are not directly affected by environmental degradation. The relaxation of the rules of locus standi under these articles has enabled the judiciary to hear cases brought by those who seek to protect the environment on behalf of the public. In environmental matters, the Supreme Court and High Courts have issued writs to prevent environmental harm, enforce environmental laws, and hold polluters accountable.
   
   For example, in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), the Supreme Court ordered the closure of limestone quarries in the Dehradun region to prevent ecological destruction, citing the need to protect the right to life under Article 21.
    

Role of PIL in Environmental Issues

The judiciary in India has played a pivotal role in the development and enforcement of environmental laws through Public Interest Litigations (PILs). By adopting a proactive stance, the courts have not only interpreted existing laws but have also laid down new principles and doctrines that have significantly influenced environmental jurisprudence in the country.

Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting and enforcing the rights of citizens, particularly when other branches of government (executive and legislative) fail to do so. In the context of environmental protection, judicial activism in India has manifested through the liberal interpretation of constitutional provisions, particularly the right to life under Article 21, to include the right to a healthy environment.

Over the years, the Indian judiciary has developed several principles and doctrines through environmental PILs, which have become cornerstones of environmental jurisprudence. These doctrines guide the interpretation and enforcement of environmental laws and policies.

1. Rule of Absolute Liability
   In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of 'absolute liability'. In this case, there was oleum gas leak at an industrial plant in the capital city of Delhi in the year 1985 which had led to the death of a person and had raised serious health issues in the general population. The Supreme Court said that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken.
   
   The Court introduced the doctrine of 'absolute liability' on the user of hazardous material and said that the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part
    
2. Sustainable Development
   The Supreme Court in the case of Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others, observed that the traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable and "Sustainable Development" is the answer. The Court held that industries are vital for the growth of the nation and there is a need to strike a balance between industrial development and sustainable development. This case was public interest litigation filed by Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum and was directed against the pollution which was being caused by enormous discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court held that such industries cannot be permitted to continue till they install pollution control devices and also held them liable to pay compensation for the past pollution caused by them.
    
3. Polluter Pays Principle
   The Polluter Pays Principle is a legal concept that holds that the party responsible for causing pollution should bear the costs associated with managing and mitigating that pollution. This principle ensures that the costs of pollution are internalized by the polluters rather than being borne by the public or the environment. The Indian judiciary has extensively applied the Polluter Pays Principle in environmental PILs to hold industries and corporations accountable for the environmental damage they cause.
   
   This principle was notably applied in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) case, where the Supreme Court directed polluting tanneries in Tamil Nadu to pay for the restoration of the environment .The principle was also reinforced in the Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) case, where the Supreme Court imposed a substantial fine on Sterlite Industries for the environmental damage caused by its operations.
   
   The Polluter Pays Principle has had a profound impact on environmental regulation in India by ensuring that polluters are held financially accountable, thereby incentivizing industries to adopt cleaner technologies and practices.
    
4. Precautionary Principle
   The Precautionary Principle is a legal approach that mandates preventive action in the face of uncertainty regarding environmental harm. It suggests that if an activity has the potential to cause significant harm to the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if there is no conclusive scientific proof of harm.
   
   This Principle was explicitly recognized and applied by the Supreme Court in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) case. The court stated that the State Government and statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. This principle has since been applied in various other cases to prevent environmental damage, particularly in situations where scientific uncertainty exists, such as in cases involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or large-scale infrastructure projects with potential environmental impacts.
   
   The Precautionary Principle has significantly strengthened environmental protection in India by shifting the burden of proof to the developer or polluter, ensuring that environmental concerns are addressed proactively rather than reactively.
    
5. Public Trust Doctrine
   The Public Trust Doctrine is a legal principle that asserts that certain natural resources, such as air, water, and forests, are held in trust by the government for the benefit of the public. These resources are meant for public use and enjoyment, and the government has a fiduciary duty to protect them from exploitation or degradation.
    

The Public Trust Doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in the M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) case. The case involved the construction of a motel on the banks of the River Beas, which was found to be diverting the river for commercial use, leading to environmental degradation. The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not abdicate its duty to protect natural resources, which are held in trust for the public. This doctrine has been applied in various other cases, including those involving the protection of coastal areas, forests, and rivers, to prevent the privatization or misuse of natural resources.

The Public Trust Doctrine has played a crucial role in safeguarding natural resources from privatization and ensuring that they are preserved for public use and ecological sustainability.

Impact of PILs on Environmental Governance:

Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have profoundly influenced environmental governance in India by pushing for stricter regulations, enhancing compliance, creating new institutional frameworks, and raising public consciousness about environmental issues.

1. Strengthening Environmental Regulations and Compliance PILs have led to the strengthening of environmental regulations in India by compelling the judiciary to interpret and enforce laws that the executive may have overlooked or inadequately implemented. Courts have used PILs to direct government agencies to enforce existing laws more rigorously and to close regulatory loopholes. For instance, the Ganga Pollution Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1988) resulted in directives to industries along the Ganges River to adopt pollution control measures, thereby strengthening compliance with water pollution regulations. Similarly, PILs have led to the enforcement of laws related to air quality, waste management, and deforestation, setting precedents for stricter regulatory oversight.
    
2. Establishment of New Institutions (e.g., National Green Tribunal) One of the most significant outcomes of environmental PILs has been the establishment of specialized institutions like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010. The NGT was created to provide a dedicated forum for the expeditious resolution of environmental disputes. This institution was a response to the increasing volume of environmental cases and the need for expertise in environmental law. The NGT has since played a crucial role in adjudicating cases related to pollution, forest conservation, and biodiversity, among others. The tribunal's establishment showcases how PILs can lead to the creation of new governance structures that improve environmental protection and judicial efficiency.
    
3. Increased Public Awareness and Participation in Environmental Issues PILs have significantly increased public awareness of environmental issues in India. By bringing environmental concerns into the judicial arena, PILs have highlighted the importance of environmental protection and the impact of environmental degradation on public health and welfare. Media coverage of landmark PIL cases, such as the Taj Trapezium Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1996), has further amplified public discourse on environmental issues.

Additionally, PILs have empowered citizens and civil society organizations to actively participate in environmental governance, encouraging them to hold authorities accountable for environmental degradation and to seek judicial remedies when necessary.

Challenges and Criticisms
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have played a significant role in advancing environmental law in India, but they also face several challenges and criticisms:

• Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that PILs often lead to judicial overreach, where courts make decisions that traditionally fall within the purview of the executive or legislative branches. This can upset the balance of power and lead to a scenario where unelected judges make policy decisions, sometimes without sufficient expertise in complex environmental matters.
   
• Delays in Implementation: While PILs can result in landmark judgments, the implementation of court orders can be slow and inconsistent. Government agencies tasked with enforcing these orders may lack the resources, political will, or capacity to do so effectively, leading to delays and a gap between judicial intent and actual outcomes.
   
• Overburdened Judiciary: The rise in PILs, particularly in environmental matters, has contributed to the already overburdened judiciary. Courts are often swamped with cases, leading to prolonged litigation and delays in justice delivery. This backlog can dilute the impact of PILs and slow down the resolution of critical environmental issues.
   
• Lack of Expertise: Environmental issues often require specialized knowledge and technical expertise. While courts play a crucial role in interpreting laws, they may lack the scientific and technical expertise needed to fully understand and address complex environmental problems. This can lead to decisions that are well-intentioned but impractical or difficult to implement.

Conclusion
Greater advancements in the field of environmental law were made in 1976. The Stockholm Declaration has inspired emerging nations to approach environmental issues differently. It needs an overall shared perspective. Since 1982, the idea of PIL has grown in significance. This occurred as a result of the justice P N Bhagwati's acknowledgment. The Supreme Court has since intervened to help the underprivileged. There was no comprehensive law in place until 1986. After fourteen years, the Stockholm Conference resulted in the creation of the Environment Protection Act in 1986.

The government was not very concerned with environmental issues at the time. Additionally, during this time period, a number of new enterprises emerged and the pollution issue started to progressively worsen. Due to the state agencies' failure to implement appropriate environmental protection measures, various environmentalist and non-governmental organisations were compelled to file legal complaints. PIL is the most efficient way for them to contact the court. These environmental challenges have been properly addressed by the Indian judiciary. The judiciary made several attempts to manage the tension between development and the environment. As a result, it can be said that public interest litigation has helped India's environmental law develop.

Bibliography:

• Supreme Court of India Judgments
• Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India.
• "Public Interest Litigation in India: Concepts, Cases, Concerns" by Jayanth K. Krishnan.
• The Constitution of India, relevant Articles and Amendments.
• https://lawbhoomi.com/role-of-public-interest-litigation-in-environmental-protection/
• https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/esp13/chapter/environment-and-public-interest-litigation/
• https://desikaanoon.in/role-of-public-interest-litigation-in-environmental-cases/

Also Read:

• Public Interest Litigation
• Role of Judiciary In Strengthening PIL
• Role of PIL in Environmental Protection In India
• Comparative Analysis Of Citizens Suit With Public Interest Litigation
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Advancing Environmental Justice in India