ABSTRACT:
In the Indian legal context, judicial activism in environmental law is the aptitude of the Indian judiciary to take the leading role in the prevention and solution of environmental problems. Efforts have been made by the Indian judiciary including the Supreme Court and High courts to protect the environment by considering PIL to give new dimensions for the Right to Life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[1] Some of the year judgments that have promulgated the environmental policy and its enforcement have been standardized due to stringent rules and formulation of new norms viewing the environmental issues like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[2], M. C. Mehta v. Union of India[3] and T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India[4]. Such activism has acted as a gap filler by providing directions in environmental protection and sustainability issues in India while waiting for laws from the legislative and rules by the executive arm.
INTRODUCTION:
Judicial review is the ability that the court system (judicial branch) possesses to review a court ruling if it thinks that the executive or legislative branches of the government have passed a law or policy that the judicial system deems as unfair or unreasonable. According to the theory of judicial review, the idea is to establish a statesmanlike division of power among the 3 branches of government as explained above. The concept of ‘court review’ is also a part of the constitutional core of this system. Court review is also within the sphere of the fundamental framework.
In the past, the Indian judiciary used PIL to let individuals and organizations complain about instances of violation of the environment and demand the protection of the earth’s environment. Essential rights are becoming an important benchmark which in the past few years have been stressed by the courts especially Article 21 which includes standings Right to life including the right to a clean and healthy environment[5]. This judicial activism has produced a line of favourable Orders that have defined the environmental policy as well as its enforcement in India.
Some appellate cases which are the best illustrative of the exertion of force in the noncompliance of environmental laws, sustaining and preserving of natural resources among others. By making these decisions, Indian courts have not only dealt with specific environmental concerns on the ground but also have shaped the directions of environmental regulation in the long run, thereby proving the thesis of this paper that judicial activism has been and remains very instrumental in environmental law-making in India.
EXPANSION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:
It has been seen that the Indian judiciary has amended the provisions of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to a much larger extent. Since that time, the scope of the right to life has been expanded through several decisions by the Supreme Court, which as constituents of the right to life the right to a healthy environment. From this, it follows that there exists a legal obligation on the state to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment in fulfilling its constitutional mandate of protecting the right to life of the individuals within its jurisdiction.
A crucial component of the Indian constitution, judicial review is a part of the fundamental framework and hence cannot be abolished. Article 13 states that neither the Union nor the States may enact laws that restrict or deny any of the fundamental rights and that any laws that do so will be deemed null and illegal to the extent that they violate that mandate.[6]
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:
Public Interest Litigation is a procedure where citizens or organizations take matters of public concern to the court. This mechanism has been beneficial in environmental law which anybody or any organization can use to address issues affecting the environment when they are not affected by the said problem. The judiciary has been welcoming of PILs and has relied on them to compel the government and private entities into implementing environmental laws and regulations.
For example, in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)[7], the petitioner moved the court under Article 32[8] of the Constitution to protect water in the Ganga River. That is why the Supreme Court also took the opportunity of this case to provide directives that would help decrease pollution and improve the quality of water.
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS:
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): Here, the Supreme Court of India deliberated on the issue concerning polluted water by tanneries in Vellore district, Tamil Nadu. The Court elaborated on the guidelines on the performance of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and sustainable development. This case was useful in entrenching the concept of sustainable development right into Indian environmental law.
MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Deepest MC Mehta is an environment lawyer who has spearheaded Some of the leading cases that have been presented before the Indian judiciary. Thus, in this case of comparable public significance, the Supreme Court delineated the issue of industrial water pollution of the Ganga River. The Court then closed several industries that were emitting pollutants to the environment and set strict environment-friendly standards. The case, however, served to highlight the effectiveness of the judiciary in the enforcement of standards and the conservation of natural resources.
MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)[9]: Another critical achievement of the Supreme Court is the case whereby they decreed that even the protection of the environment is a constitutional imperative that lies within the state. In this respect, The Court stated that for the state to allow change of natural water bodies for commercial purposes the approval of the commission is mandatory most importantly an approval that will effectively consider and approve impacts on the environment in advance.
DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE:
- Polluter Pays Principle: This principle provides that the parties responsible for contributing to pollution should be responsible for the costs incurred in managing pollution. This principle has been adopted and implemented by the Supreme Court to ensure polluters bear the costs they have incurred to the environment.
- Precautionary Principle: The precautionary principle implies that whenever there is doubt about the impacts of environmental harm, then precaution should be taken. The element of this principle has been adopted in Indian environmental law through the judiciary to prevent any harm to the environment in the future.
- Sustainable Development: The principle of sustainable development helps to maintain the balance between economic development and the use of resources. This has been highlighted by the judiciary, stressing that development activities should be carried out in a way that does not disadvantage future generations from undertaking activities within their needs.
CONCLUSION:
The general public can be made more sensitive to the problem of environmental pollution by public awareness campaigns, in which the media plays a crucial role. The conservation and preservation of our environment also depend on the establishment of distinct Green Benches and Green Tribunals, frequent inspections by authorities, and environmental education. Despite its inherent issues, the Indian judiciary has demonstrated its interest in environmental conservation through several landmark and unorthodox decisions. It is undoubtedly commendable that the highest court is attempting to limit environmental contamination through Public Interest Litigation, especially in light of the legislature’s slow progress in filling the gaps in the current legal framework and the administration’s lack of readiness for the task at hand.
The concept of “sustainable development,” which emphasizes that the right to development should not have a negative influence on the potential of natural resources, is another important topic that we have always kept in mind: resource management. Since the majority of environmental cases heard by the Supreme Court are the result of Public Interest Litigation under Articles 32[10] and 226[11] of the Indian Constitution, PILs have also been crucial in protecting the environment.
Author(s) Name: Manasi Sutar (Government Law College Mumbai)
References:
[1] The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 21
[2] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 (SC)
[3] MC Mehta v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 (SC)
[4] T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267
[5] The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 21
[6] The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 13
[7] Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) AIR 420 (SC)
[8] The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 32
[9] M C Mehta v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353 (SC)
[10] The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 32
[11] The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 226
