21 Role of Judiciary in Environmental Clearance

Tarun Arora

1. Introduction

2. Scope of judicial contribution

3 Urban Issues and Management

3.1 Sanitation

3.2 Solid Waste Management

3.3 Public spaces, pavements, Town Planning

3.4 Industry Zone

Conclusions

1. Introduction

The Preamble to the Constitution of India enshrined right to live with dignity as one of the fundamental principles of governance of the country. In pursuance of the goal to ensure right to live with dignity, Part III and Part IV contains several provisions imposing obligations on the State. Article 21 of Indian Constitution under Part III guarantees right to life and personal liberty to every person within the territory of India. It runs as follows:

No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The scope of right to live given under Article 21 has been expanded by the Indian Judiciary so wide as to cover right to clean and healthy environment as an important constituent of it. It is important to point out here that the State has been placed under a duty to protect and improve environment through Article 48-A. This Article was added through Constitution

(42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, it provides:

The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.

The conjoint reading of above two articles indicate that the State has been directed to ensure that all the persons enjoy their right to life including right to clean and healthy environment, right to fresh air, right to potable water, right to protection against noise pollution and so on. Besides, it is not only the duty of the State but of the individuals as well ‘to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures’.1

2.  Scope of Judicial Contribution

This chapter aims at elaboration of judicial approach towards environmental clearance. The definition of environment is very wide and it covers, ‘water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property’. Keeping in view of this inclusive definition, the role of judiciary towards environment clearance can be explained under following heads:

1. Forest Protection and Management;

2. Wildlife Protection and Management;

3. Urban Issues and Management-

a.  Sanitation;

b.  Solid Waste Management;

c.   Public Spaces, Parks, Pavements and Town Planning

d.   Industry Zones

The contribution of the judiciary in context of above can be highlighted in detail as under:

2.1 Forest Protection and Management: The Courts in India have been very passionate in context of protection of environment. Since forests are inextricable part of environment. Life support system is sustained on several factors wherein forest constitutes a vital component. A duty under Article 48-A of the Constitution of India, as stated earlier, has been enjoined upon the States to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Nonetheless, the forest cover in India was decreasing over past few decades on account of various development activities. Therefore, this part of chapter will evaluate the role of judiciary in performance of its part to protect forests. The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad v. Union of India2 while determining the question of conservation, preservation and protection of forests and the ecology, observed that natural resources are the assets of entire nation. The matter involved following issues:

i.   Whether the user agency of forest land should not be asked to compensate the consequential loss of benefits accruing from diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.

ii.  Whether the Net Present Value of such diversion of land should not be determined on the basis of benefits to be received by the user in long run.

iii.   Is there any need of any yardstick or guidelines to determine Net Present Value? If yes, what shall be the extent of application of Net Present Value and how to calculate it? Is there any need to exempt some projects from the payment of Net Present Value?

During the course of arguments, the States came up with the argument that forests are the property of a State. Therefore, the amount to be collected through Net Present Value has to be paid to them. Besides, the States pleaded that there should be no Net Present Value on degraded forests. The States further contended that all public utility projects should be exempted from the payment of Net Present Value.

While Amicus Curiae represented that forests are the property of a nation and is a part of eco–system and, therefore, the value should not be calculated on the basis of trees and leaves but also in context of bio-diversity. He further raised the concern that Net Present Value has to be calculated on the basis of not on the basis of property rights of the States but on the basis of effect on ecology by conversion of land for non-forest purpose. It was further submitted that Net Present Value should be decided on the basis of economic value covering the period of 50 years which would be regeneration value for forest regeneration and restoration.

The Court while adjudicating upon above issues clarified that there is no doubt that the development of a nation is the primary concern. It also cautioned that development has to be consistent with the protection of environment. No development is permissible on the cost of degradation. There is a need to frame a balanced policy or vision for holistic development covering integration of economic development and environment protection. Depletion of forest cover cannot be permitted on the ground of economic development, therefore, it was emphasized to take precautionary measures into consideration where forest land are sought to be directed for non-forest use.

So far as calculation of Net Present Value is concerned, the Court opined that forest is a public project. A benefit received presently may worth more than that received later. However, it may be kept in mind that the benefit received today is decided on the basis of ‘cost incurred’ today. Time value of cash inflow or outflow is a vital factor in investment appraisal. Therefore, Net Present Value is a method to level the cost and benefit by taking note of various factors like value of rupee in present and fifty years later, rate of interest, rate of return etc.

Finally the Court held that since development has to be based on sustainability. While charging Net Present Value, public interest should be the guiding principle, not the interest of user agency. The payment of Net Present Value has to be ensured uniformly by all- whether the user agency is State or a private entity. While doing so, it must be kept in mind that revenue earning projects should be treated differently than non-revenue earning public welfare projects like government hospitals, dispensaries and schools. The factors like regeneration and compulsory afforestation must be given adequate attention. The Net Present Value has to be calculated to protect the environment, not to pay in lieu of proprietary rights. Thus, direction to create separate funds was issued by the Court to ensure application of principle of intergenerational justice.

Earlier in Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. Union of India3 the Supreme Court treated a letter and an application as petition that contained allegations of unauthorized and illegal mining in the Mussoorie–Dehradun belt, affecting adversely ecology and environmental order of the area. The Court before passing the judgment appointed took assistance from the Expert Committees to assess the feasibility of mining operations in the area. The Committee reported that there were three categories of area- firstly, area falling within the Mussoorie City Board limits wherein mining operations should cease immediately. Second type of areas were the areas on which more intensive study was required to assess damage of forest habitat due to mining activities. The Court appointed Bandopadhyay Committee and also directed U.P. Government to provide necessary funds for smooth functioning of the committee. The Committee submitted its report later recommending ceasing the mining operations in second category too which was ordered by the Court in another judgment under the same title.4 While in third category where the environmental damage was less, the Court permitted mining operations.

While pronouncing its order in 1988, the Court walked an extra mile going beyond the boundaries fixed under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to conserve forests and issued directions to the State Government to ensure afforestation. Sticking to its commitment to protect forests, the Court appointed a Monitoring Committee comprising Central, State and Local Government Officials along with two ‘public spirited individuals’ to oversee reforestation activities. Besides, the Court passed the judgment to provide funding to Monitoring Committee from 25% of the gross profit of the remaining mines.

Further, the contribution of the judiciary in forest management and protection can be summarized as under:

i. Issuing order to demolish the holiday home and cottage in ‘reserve forest area’ made by LIC and Income Tax Department as it meant to deprive the citizens from their fundamental right to access the natural resources gifted by the nature to the mankind.5

ii.  Shifting of a cement factory causing pollution in Dehradun Valley to alternative site.6

iii.  Discontinuing the tendency to renewal of a lease by holding that renewal is not a vested right. If a new law or notification is issued instructing prior concurrence of the Central Government, mining in the forest area is prohibited.7

iv.  Prior approval of the Central Government for grant of lease in forest area for mining is a condition precedent. Absence of prior approval shall render a lease void.8

v.    While permitting an industry based on forest produce, appropriate assessment should be made of forest wealth and ecological balance should be closely monitored.9

vi.    Where mining is possible subject to safeguards and precautions, the H.P. High Court appointed a Monitoring Committee to supervise the mining activities.10

vii.    Where an industry or enterprise is permitted to carry on mining operations within the reserved forest or other forest area, it is the duty of the leaseholder to ensure that forest does not become a menace to human existence or a source to destroy flora and fauna and bio-diversity.11

viii.  The area of a sanctuary or national park cannot be allowed to be a network of pipelines of refineries.12

ix.  Forest being ‘element of sustainable development’ are required to be protected by strict enforcement of laws. In case of conflict between right to run a saw mill and right to live of larger section, precedence cannot be given to run a saw mill. Balance has to be struck up between the two competing interests by avoiding hardships.13

x.  Public Trust doctrine basically rests upon the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. These resources being gift of nature, should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life.14

xi.  The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.15

K.V. Samungham v. State of Tamilnadu16 the State Government accorded approval for mining in the forest area on the condition that mining operations would begin after the license issued by the Central Government. The Madras High Court set aside the orders of the State Government and clarified that license issued by the Central Government is pre-requisite for non-forest activities under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

2.2 Wildlife Protection and Management

Preservation of wildlife is vital for maintaining the ecological equilibrium in the environment and sustaining the ecological chain. The inter-relation between these two has to be understood. Elaborating the object of Wildlife Laws, the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan17 observed as under:

Wild Life laws have a long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalances introduced by the depredations inflicted on nature by man. The state to which the ecological imbalances and the consequent environmental damage have reached is so alarming that unless immediate, determined and effective steps were taken, the damage might become irreversible. The preservation of the fauna and flora, some species of which are getting extinct at an alarming rate, has been a great and urgent necessity for the survival of humanity and these laws reflect a grave situation emerging from a long history of callous insensitiveness to the enormity of the risks to mankind that go with the deterioration of environment. Environmentalist’s conception of the ecological balance in nature is based on the fundamental concept that nature is ‘a series of complex biotic communities of which a man is inter-dependent part’ and that it should not be given to a part to trespass and diminish the whole. The largest single factor in the depletion of the wealth of animal life in nature has been the ‘civilized man’ operating directly through excessive commercial hunting or more disastrously, indirectly through invading or destroying natural habitats.18

In view of foregoing, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court against the cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate. It allowed the Magistrate to proceed in the criminal case initiated on the complaint.

Sustaining the same spirit to deal hardly with the offenders under Wild Life Act, the High Court of Delhi in World Wide Fund for Nature v. Union of India19 took note of the problems being faced by forest guards in protecting the wildlife against hunting by the organized criminals equipped with modern weapons. It recommended the Union Government to provide adequate staff equipped with modern weapons and also involve native villagers of sanctuaries to strengthen the enforcement machinery against wildlife crimes. The High Court also constituted a committee to implement the directions and to make recommendations for the preservation and protection of wild animals in national parks with particular reference to tiger.

The relations between ecological balance and wildlife preservation were also explained by the Court through an illustration in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan20. It is important to understand that snakes eat frogs, frogs eat insects, and insects eat other insects and vegetation. If snakes are killed, the number of frogs will increase and this will result in frogs eating more of the insects and it will further increase in number to a disproportionate extent, or the vegetation will increase to a disproportionate extent. It will ultimately disturb the ecological balance in nature. Use of much insecticide may lead to further health problems. The Supreme Court emphasized upon the need to develop scientific understanding of nature, and in particular of the ecological chain wherein the linkages is still very primitive, incomplete and fragmentary.

The Court in this matter took note of the illegal wildlife products trade amounting to US$ 20 billion a year and expressed its concern over the India’s position as a major source market for this trade. It expressed its concern over the present number of tigers only 1411 left in India indicate that the smuggling is occurring across the border to meet the demand for the products in neighboring countries. Referring that India is a signatory to both the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC) and also expressed its anguish over the threat of extinction of many species of the wildlife. Recommending the Central Government and State Governments to adopt holistic approach to preserve the wildlife of the county, it observed that stringent action should be taken against the offenders violating the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as it is indispensable for maintaining the balance in the country.

In Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v. Union of India21 validity of provisions imposing banned on trade in imported ivory and articles made from the ivory was challenged on the ground of being violating Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that prohibition was justified since the sale of ivory by the dealers would encourage poaching and killing of elephants to replenish the stocks held by the petitioners. The court made categorically clear that trade and business at the cost of disrupting life forms and linkages necessary for the preservation of biodiversity and ecology cannot be permitted.

Right on the heels of the judgment in Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association, the Delhi High Court in G.R. Simon v. Union of India22 rejected the challenge by manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers in tanned, cured and finished animal skins. The Court observed that wildlife form part of India’s heritage and provisions were designed to eliminate stocking of animal skins to prevent accumulated stocks from serving as a cover for smuggling animal articles.

The contribution of Indian judiciary towards wildlife can be summarized through following points:

i. Shrinkage of forest cover even due to entry of villagers and tribal living in and around the Sanctuaries and National Parks is not affordable. The Court further laid down directions to the government to take steps to prevent any destruction or damage to the environment, flora –fauna and wildlife of these areas. The Court cautioned the state government to act with a sense of urgency in matters enjoined by Article 48-A of the Constitution keeping in mind the duty enshrined in Article 51-A (g).23

ii. Grant of licenses by the Government to illegally mine in a reserve area and a Sanctuary and a National Park and a Protected Forest is contrary to law.24

iii. Lease of a piece of land to a hotelier was declared ultra-virus by Karnatka High Court in a public interest litigation filed by Nagarahole Budakattu Hakku Sthapana Samithi v. State25.

iv.  Direction to Ministry of Environment and Forests to evolve new standards for endangered species conservation as the Wild Life Act has failed in protecting endangered species. Many of the endangered species are on the verge of extinction. The Court, while adopting eco-centric approach along with ‘species best interest standard’ urged for the operationalization of National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) to identify ‘all endangered species of flora and fauna, study their needs and survey environs’.

3. Urban Issues and Management: The approach of the judiciary towards urban issues threatening clean and healthy environment can be discussed as under:

3.1 Sanitation: The landmark case on the problem of the sanitation is Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand26 – this is case is also known as precursor of compassionate approach of the judiciary to ensure availability of clean and hygienic environment. The issue in this matter arose due to filth and stench resulting from the absence of public sanitation facility and drain. An application was moved under Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to abate the nuisance by ordering the municipality to construct drain pipes with flow of water to wash the filth and stop the stench. The matter after passing through the Sessions Court and High Court reached in Appeal before the Supreme Court which issued the directions as under:

a.   The municipal council must complete the execution of the work to provide proper drainage system within one year, for which the work must start within two months. The magistrate shall inspect its progress every three months.

b.   It must take action to stop effluents from the alcohol plant flowing into the street. The State Government shall also take steps to stop pollution.

c.  It must construct within six months, a sufficient number of public latrines provide water supply and scavenging services in the morning and evening to ensure sanitation. Health officer shall report at the end of six months term.

d. It must fill up cesspools and other pits of filth.

e.  If this direction is not complied with, the Sub-Division Magistrate will prosecute officers responsible and the Supreme Court may consider for contempt.

Another instance reflecting the judicial approach towards sanitation is L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan27 wherein Rajasthan High Court was prayed to issue directions to the municipal authorities to perform its statutory duty to provide adequate sanitation. The Court in this matter held that every citizen has a right to know the activities of the State, its instrumentalities, the departments and the agencies of the State. Though the State can impose restrictions on the right to know of one person in context of national security and other allied matter affecting nation’s security and integrity, yet this right is limited and particular in the matter of sanitation and other allied matter every citizen has a right to know how the state is functioning and why the state is withholding information in matters concerning public – like public health, preservation of the sanitation and environment. Failure in maintenance of these shall be adversely affecting and slow poisoning to deprive the right to life of the citizen.

3.2 Solid Waste Management- Regarding the management of solid waste in the cities, the Courts in India from time to time issued directions to locate landfill and compositing sites. Earlier in B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India28 took note of the pathetic conditions prevailing in national capital wherein the Court issued comprehensive directives for the adequate disposal of hospital waste and landfill management. The court expressed its anguish over the excuse of non-availability of funds, inadequacy or inefficiency of staff taken by the Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court also suggested the idea of privatizing garbage disposal services. 29 Recently the National Green Tribunal in Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India30 while taking note of the solid waste generation capacity of the country i.e. 133760 MT in 2012-13 and assuming more in present, condemned apathy shown in the implementation gap of policies and failure throughout the country to make any landfill site available. It acknowledged that indiscriminate dumping of such a huge amount of waste would produce serious adverse impact on environment and public health. Recommending the adoption of Waste Management Rules, 2016 to ameliorate the situation by using humongous waste into a source of power, fuel and benefit for society at large, in consonance with principles of Circular Economy, the Tribunal advocated processing of waste for power generation. It urged the States to introduce processing of waste by adopting, bio-methanation, composting, conversion to RDF and converting waste to power generation and also laid down following directions:

a.  All States and UTs to enforce and implement the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 without any delay;

b.   Prepare an Action Plan for disposal of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in time bound manner and submit the report regarding identification of landfill sites for processing and disposal of the waste.

c. Ensure mandatory segregation of waste for proper processing of the waste.

d. To provide a buffer zone and green belt around plants and landfill sites.

e. In case, any cement plant or power generation industry is situated within 100 km radius of the landfill site, it should be mandatory for them to buy and use RDF Fuel in their respective plants.

f.  The non-biodegradable waste and non-recyclable plastic should be segregated from the landfill sites and be used for construction of roads and embankments in all road projects all over the country.

g.  Ministry of Environment and Forests, Central Government and State Governments to consider the pass appropriate directions concerning ban on short life PVC and chlorinated plastics as expeditiously as possible.

h.  Complete ban on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfill sites. For each such incident or default, offender shall be liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in case of simple burning and Rs. 25,000/- in case of bulk waste burning.

i.  All the authorities, concessionaire, operator of the facility shall be obliged to display on their respective websites the data in relation to the functioning of the plan and its adherence to the prescribed parameters. This data shall be placed in the public domain and any person would be entitled to approach the authority, if the plant is not operating as per prescribed parameters.

j.  The authorities, concessionaire, operator of the facility shall take all steps to sensitize the public about the facility available – processing of the waste, obligations of the public at large, public authorities etc.

Taking note of already failure in implementing Rules, 2016; it was directed that failure in statutory obligations regarding Solid Waste Management Rules shall be liable to be proceeded against in accordance with Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

3.3 Public Spaces, Parks, Pavements, Town Planning– The Supreme Court in Banglore Medical Trust v. B.S. Mundappa31 declared the order of the Chief Minister to covert a space reserved for public-park into nursing home as unconstitutional. The Court made it clear that park is meant for beautification and recreational activities for people of surrounding areas. The loss to be borne by the users of a park cannot be compensated by constructing a nursing home. Therefore, the importance of a public space and park from the environmental perspectives cannot be ignored.

Following the same approach in D.D. Vyas v. Ghaziabzad Development Authority32 High Court of Allahabad clarified that an area already earmarked for public-park under Area Development Planning cannot be ignored on the ground of development of area subsequently. Moving a step ahead, Rajasthan High Court in Nizam v. Jaipur Development Authority33 held that an open area reserved for a public park, garden, lawn cannot be allotted for establishing a school. Similarly in Virender Gaur v. State of Rajasthan34 a piece of land was set aside for maintaining ecology and clean environment under Town Planning Scheme. However, the government allotted it on lease for building a tannery. Consequent upon filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court, it was ordered to Municipality Council to demolish the constructed portion of tannery within four weeks from the date of order and report. The same approach was also adopted by Dehli High Court in in Dr. G.N. Khajooria v. Delhi Development Authority35 an area of land was reserved for park in a residential colony. Delhi Development Authority allotted this land for construction of a nursery school which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

3.4 Industry Zones- Sanction to establish industry in an area earmarked for residential facility was challenged in the matter of Laxmipathy v. State of Karnatka36 on the ground that such a sanction order is in violation of the provisions of Karnatka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The High Court declared all such licenses and permission as unconstitutional, null and void on account of contradiction with right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court made it clear the right to life as given under Article 21 implies ‘quality life’ which is possible only in clean and hygienic environment. If there is any danger to the quality of air and environment due to human agencies, the Court will adopt a proactive approach and not hesitate in exercising its jurisdiction to protect right to life and protection against pollution.

Subsequently in Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action37 the Court upheld the validity of the law namely Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 providing for allocation of land for residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural uses, designation of land for public purposes, open spaces, playgrounds, stadia, zoological gardens, green belt, nature reserves, sanctuaries and dairies, public utilities and amenities.

Conclusions:

In view of foregoing discussion, it can be submitted that the Courts in India have been sensitive enough to contribute in the development of environmental jurisprudence through their judgments. There have been several instances where the apathy of legislature and executive, political interference and anthropocentric attitude of policy makers and implementing mechanism compelled the Courts to review the validity of their actions which result into arising of conflicts between the judiciary and other two wings of the government. The judiciary, being the guardian of the citizen’s rights and the constitution as well, has made tremendous and passionate efforts to protect the environment. Many of the judgments referred above reflect the judicial approach containing objectivity, time bound, transparency, accountability and participatory governance by appointing Expert’s Monitoring Committee.

Directions were also laid down to establish ‘Green Benches’ in the High Courts for speedy disposal of cases concerning environmental matters. New tools for seeking judicial remedies from the Courts in the form of Public Interest Litigations and treating a letter as a petition have been devised by the judiciary to ensure enviro-justice to the stakeholders. However, it cannot be ignored that the Courts in few matters have realized the misuse of the remedial nature of Public Interest Litigations to settle the personal score or for the purpose of publicity. Besides, it would not be of place to refer here that the remedy of Public Interest Litigation is not available to the people of remote areas and its effect is also limited. Besides, it has also been observed that in the matters of Public Interest Litigation, follow up or post decisional impact assessment is difficult on account of poor implementation. Finally, it can be submitted that though the judiciary has been striving hard to protect the environment yet due to several factors, the desired results have yet to be achieved.

References:
1. Article 51-A (g), the Constitution of India. This provisions was also added by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.

2. W.P. (Civil) No. 202/1995. Date of Judgment 26 September 2005. Full Bench Judgement: Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia.

3. AIR 1985 SC 652.

4. AIR 1987 SC 2426.

5. T. Damodar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad AIR 1987 AP 171.

6. ARC Cement Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 57.

7. Divisional Forest Officer v. S. Nageswaramma 1996 (6) SCC 442.

8. Samatha v. State of A.P. AIR 1997 SC 3297; Sakti v. State of A.P. W.P. No. 3734/1993; Nirmal Kumar Pradeep Kumar v. state of Bihar 1994 (1) Bih. L. J. Rep.   524; Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. State of Bihar 1998 (3) Bih. L. J. Rep. 1676.

9. Samatha v. State of A.P. AIR 1997 SC 3297

10. General Public of Saproon Valley v. State of H.P. AIR 1993 HP 52.

11. State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products 1995 (6) SCC 363.

12. Essar Oil Ltd.v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti decided by Supreme Court on 19.1.2014.

13. Sardar Khan son of Sri Zikar ..v. The Van Sanrakshak 2005 (3) AWC 2843. (Allahabad High Court).

14. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.

15. Intellectuals Forum, Tirupati v. State of A.P. and Others (2006) 3 SCC 549.

16. AIR 1997 Mad. 338.

17. AIR 1989 SC 1.

18. Ibid p 3-4.

19. 1994 (54) Del. 286.

20. Civil Appeal No. 2024/2010. Judgment delivered by Double Bench- Justice M. Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur.

21. AIR 1997 Del. 267.

22. AIR 1997 Del 301.

23. Pradeep Krishen v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2040.

24. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 514 (also known as ‘Sariska Case’).

25. AIR 1997 Kar. 288.

26. AIR 1980 SC 1622.

27. AIR 1988 Raj. 2.

28. AIR 1996 SC 2969.

29. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India

30. Manu/GT/0150/2016.

31. (1991) 4 SCC 54.

32. AIR 1993 All. 57.

33. AIR 1994 Raj. 87.

34. 1995) 2 SCC 577.

35. (1995) 5 SCC 762.

36. AIR 1992 Kant. 57.

37. Civil Appeal No. 1519/2006 decided on 7 March 2006.