WRIT REMEDY: THE

SUPREME COURT AS
AN ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATOR
• The increased use of writs as a means of redressal in environmental matters and the subsequent
evolution of environmental jurisprudence with significant contributions by the Supreme Court will
be addressed.
RULE

• A writ can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32; before High Courts under Article
226.
• Right to a pollution free environment - an implied right under Article 21. Thus a writ can be filed
when the Fundamental Right under Article 21 is violated. However a writ under 226 before a High
Court can be filed not merely for violation of fundamental rights but statutory rights as well.
• If an alternative and efficacious remedy is available then that option has to be exhausted first before
approaching the Supreme Court for instance National Green Tribunal. The Supreme Court can
entertain appeals arising out of such bodies.

• *Generally Writs of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition are used in environmental matters
ANALYSIS

• A pandora of human rights jurisprudence opened after the Supreme Court’s decision in Maneka Gandhi v
UOI (1978). It expanded the horizons of human rights wherein, Justice Bhagwati asserted that Right to
Live under Article 21 was not merely confined to animal existence but it included broaders aspects such
as right to live with dignity. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP was the first case
before the Supreme Court on Environmental Law wherein the Supreme Court ordered registration of the
case under Article 32 emanating from Right to Life under Article 21. Herein the Supreme Court directed
101 limestone quarries to be shut down as they were detrimental to the environment.

• Further in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India another writ petition was entertained
by the Supreme Court. In this case the industries had polluted groundwater and soil making it unfit for
cultivation. The SC reiterated that inability of the government authorities and industries was violating
citizen’s fundamental right to a clean environment.
• Subsequent to this there have been many cases such as Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar wherein a Public
Interest Litigation under writ jurisdiction was analysed. Due to insufficient evidence the court asserted
that PIL cannot be used to further personal interests.

• AP Pollution Board v. M.V. Naidu holds a significant position in environmental law jurisprudence in India
as the Apex Court held that Polluters Pay Principle and Precautionary Principle are essential part of
Environmental Law in the country. According to which, absence of information did not exonerate an
industry/body of the repercussions of pollution, it has the duty to take precautionary measures. It was also
the case where the SC suggested establishment of separate Environmental Courts in every region.
Moreover it opined the principle of inter-generational equity of natural resources and the need to comply
with Stockholm Declaration 1972.
• Applying the Precautionary Principle in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India the SC laid concrete
directions for construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam including setting up of a review committee, mandatory
clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest among others. In MC Mehta v UOI (the Taj Trapezium
case), the Supreme Court while shutting down industries which caused pollution added a new dimension by
compensating the workers employed in those industries who were dependent on them for livelihood and would
be affected.

• The Public Trust Doctrine which occupies a pivotal role in environmental law today was upheld by the court in MC Mehta v.
UOI. While dismissing the lease agreement of forest land the court opined - “Public Trust Doctrine is part of the law of land -
The role of the State cannot be confined to that of a facilitator or generator of economic activities for immediate upliftment of
the fortunes of the State. The State also has to act as a trustee for the benefit of the general public in relation to the natural
resources so that sustainable development can be achieved in the long term. Such role of the State is more relevant today, than,
possibly, at any point of time in history with the threat of climate catastrophe resulting from global warming looming large.”
[Referred to M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others [(1997) 1 SCC 388]. (Para 28)
• Additionally in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI the Apex Court while entertaining writ
petition asserted that industrial development cannot be at the cost of environmental pollution and
that sustainable development was the need of the hour. Notably, instead of answering the issue
‘whether industries should be given permission to operate any further’ , the court set up ‘Green
Benches’ and left to its discretion further action.
• These and a series of other cases highlighted the need for setting up a separate body for dealing with
emerging cases on environmental law. A National Environment Appellate Authority was established
in 1997 which was replaced by the National Green Tribunal under the NGT Act 2010. The Tribunal
can be approached with cases pertaining to any of the following seven environmental laws:
Ø The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [Water Act]
Ø The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977
Ø The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Ø The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 [Air Act]
Ø The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Ø The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
Ø The Biological Diversity Act, 2002
• Hereafter a plethora of case laws have gone to Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction
against NGT’s orders instead of a direct writ petition. One of the recent examples being Binay
Kumar Dalei Versus State of Odisha. Moreover the Supreme Court can also revoke clearance
awarded by statutory bodies, for instance in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Union of India it
revoked the clearance granted by National Board for Wildlife constituted under Section 5A of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA) .
CONCLUSION

• Thus the Supreme Court has original writ jusridiction under Article 32 and appellate writ
jurisdiction arising out of High Courts. Over the years with the establishment of Green Benches,
tribunals and statutory bodies, the SC also enjoys appellate jurisdiction against its orders. Further
Environmental law in India has also evovled recognising Stockholm Declaration, Polluter Pays
Principle, Precautionary Mesaures and Doctrine of Public Trust.
• DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI v STATE OF KARNATAKA
• The court dismissed a PIL by an organisation challenging the State's decision
allowing setting up of a sugar mill factory using Kali River water.
• "In case, a commercial venture brings in results which are more beneficial for the
people, the benefit to a larger section of the people has to get primacy over
comparatively lesser hardship. It is trite law that parameters of judicial review are
limited to malafide, bias and arbitrariness."
• https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-kali-river-commercial-use-
dandeli-town-haliyal-taluk-208669?infinitescroll=1
• Rajamani, L. “Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of
Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability.” Journal of Environmental
Law 19, no. 3 (August 9, 2007): 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqm020.
• Rajamani, Lavanya. “The Right to Environmental Protection in India: Many a Slip
between the Cup and the Lip?” Review of European Community & International
Environmental Law 16, no. 3 (December 1, 2007): 274–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9388.2007.00573.x.
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP, AIR 1982 SC 652