PIL and the Environment

In one line

MU asks for "the contribution of Public Interest Litigation in environmental protection", and the honest answer is that almost everything on this syllabus that is not a statute came out of a public interest petition, and that the same instrument has costs which a good answer states.

Six contributions

One: it created the right

The right to a wholesome environment under Article 21 does not exist in the text of the Constitution. It exists because petitioners with no personal stake brought cases and courts decided them. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420, Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1994 Supp (6) SCR 78, and T. Damodhar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171, were all brought by people who were not the primary victims of the harm they complained of.

Without relaxed standing there is no environmental Article 21. That is the largest single contribution and it should be stated first.

Two: it created the principles

Every doctrine this paper examines was laid down in a public interest case, and Article 141 then made each of them binding on every court in India.

Absolute liability, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Oleum Gas Leak case), AIR 1987 SC 1086, where the Court refused to follow Rylands v. Fletcher with its exceptions and held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community, with no defence of reasonable care, and that the measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise so that it deters.

The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715, held to be essential features of sustainable development and part of the environmental law of India.

The public trust doctrine, in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, where the Court held the doctrine to be part of the law of the land and the State to be trustee of all natural resources meant for public use and enjoyment.

The burden of proof on the developer, in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812, where the Court held that the concept placing the burden on the developer proposing to alter the status quo has become part of environmental law, and that uncertainty of scientific proof cannot be a reason to permit a hazardous activity.

The right against the adverse effects of climate change, in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280.

Three: it made statutes work

The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 was not being applied to most forests until T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, held that it applies to all forests irrespective of ownership or classification, that "forest" must be understood in its dictionary meaning, and that "forest land" in section 2 includes any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of ownership. It then suspended all non-forest activity without prior central approval and all felling outside sanctioned working plans.