Environmental Protection PIL

Environmental Protection
through PIL
Points to be covered up:
• Article 32 and 226
• Locus Standi (a brief)
• Public Interest Litigation (Also Citizen and Representative standing)
• Basics of PIL in brief (with cases like Hussainara Khatoon v.
State of Bihar, S.P. Gupta v. Union of
India………………)
• PIL with respect to environmental protection in India (with cases)
Article 32 and 226
• Article 32 differs from Article 226. Article 32 can be invoked only for the enforcement
of Fundamental Rights whereas Article 226 can be invoked not only for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights but for ‘any other purpose’ as well.
• The Article 32 provides that an individual can move to the Supreme Court of India in
case of infringement of any of his fundamental right by issuance of writs or orders
for the enforcement of the abovementioned rights.
• On the other hand, Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, empowers the High Courts
to protect the Statutory/legal rights besides the Fundamental rights as guaranteed by
the Constitution of India , by issuance of various writs.
• This means that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is restricted as
compared with the power of a High Court under Article 226, for, if an administrative
action does not affect a Fundamental Right, then it can be challenged only in the
High Court under Article 226, and not in the Supreme Court under Article 32.
• The words “for any other purpose” found in Article 226 (but not in Article 32), enable
a High Court to take cognizance of any matter even if no Fundamental Rights in
involved.
Public Interest Litigation
• In the last two decades, the Indian Supreme Court and then the High Courts have widened the
concept of locus standi by allowing public spirited people and organisations to have access to the
courts for putting forth the cause of those people who due to their disabilities such as poverty,
illiteracy etc., are unable to have access to justice. This has developed a whole new branch of law
known as Public Interest Litigation or Social Action Litigation. PILs are mostly directed towards
government lawlessness.
• Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati are the two pioneers of PIL.
• The definition of Public interest litigation is not mentioned in any statute or in any
act. It has been interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public at large.
However, the principal purpose of such litigation is exclusively "Public Interest".
• There are diverse areas where a Public interest litigation can be filed. For e.g.
1) When basic human rights of a poor person is violated.
2) To question contents or conduct of any government policy.
3) To compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty.
4) When other basic fundamental rights are violated.
Key Ingredients:
• It would comprehend any legal wrong or injury of illegal burden, caused or threatened,. It
would not necessarily be confined to the violation of fundamental rights.
• The subject may be either a person or a determinate class of persons who by reason of
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantageous position
cannot themselves claim relief before the courts.
• Any member of the public can maintain an application for appropriate direction etc. on
behalf of such a person or class of persons.
• The High Court can be moved for the infraction of any right, the Supreme Court can be
moved for the violation of fundamental rights only.
• The Court can issue any direction, order or writ for the redressal of grievances.
• The Court could be moved by a member of the public even by addressing a letter which the
Court could convert into a writ petition. (Sometimes, even a newspaper report/letter has
been converted into a petition suo moto by the Court)
Environmental Protection through Public Interest
Litigation (Landmark Judgements)
• Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs State of U.P. 1989 AIR
594: In 1987, the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, on the behalf of
residents of the Doon valley, filed a case in the Supreme Court against
limestone quarrying. This case was the first requiring the Supreme Court to
balance environmental and ecological integrity against industrial demands
on forest resources. The courts directed the authorities to stop quarrying in
the Mussoorie hills.
• Gas leak in Shriram Factory: In the historic case of the oleum gas leak
from the Shriram Food and Fertilizer factory in Delhi, in 1986, the Supreme
Court ordered the management to pay compensation to the victims of the
gas leak. The “absolute liability” of a hazardous chemical manufacturer to
give compensation to all those affected by an accident was introduced in this
case and it was the first time compensation was paid to victims.
• Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar: The Supreme Court said that PIL can
only be filed in public interest and not personal interest under Article 32.
Cont….
• M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Ors 1991 SCC (2) 353 :Against vehicular pollution n India the
Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in 1992. A retired Judge of the Supreme Court was
appointed along with three members to recommend measures for the nationwide control of vehicular
pollution. Orders for providing Lead free petrol in the country and for the use of natural gas and other
mode of fuels for use in the vehicles in India have been passed and carried out. Lead-free petrol had
been introduced in the four metropolitan cities from April 1995; all new cars registered from April 1995
onwards have been fitted with catalytic convertors; COG outlets have been set up to provide CNG as a
clean fuel in Delhi and other cities in India apart from Euro 2 norms. As a result of this case, Delhi has
become the first city in the world to have complete public transportation running on CNG.
• M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors (1997) 1 SCC 388 : In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Span motel,
owned by the family members of Shri Kamal Nath, Minister for Environment and Forests, Govt. of India
diverted the Course of river Beas to beautify the motel and also encroached upon some forest land. The
apex court ordered the management of the Span motel to hand over forest land to the Govt. of Himachal
Pradesh and remove all sorts of encroachments.
The Court delivered a land mark judgment and established principle of exemplary damages for the first
time in India. The Court said that polluter must pay to reverse the damage caused by his act and
imposed a fine of Rs Ten Lakhs (Rs 10,00,000) on the Span motel as exemplary damages. The Supreme
Court of India recognized Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.
• Note: Many more such cases could be added from the history of Indian Judiciary which are more vocal in
support of Environment and healthy life.
Thank You

Environmental Protection PIL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Protection PIL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Protection PIL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Protection

You might also like