2 Sources of Domestic Environmental Law

Ms Meena Panickar

1. Introduction

Protection of environment in India has its foundations in the obligations undertaken by India in international instruments, the Constitutional framework of the country, the legislation enacted, and the judicial decisions. Sources of environmental law, for that reason, can be located in these instruments. Apart from these formal sources, a number of informal mechanisms supplement the efforts to protect the environment in terms of conservation, management and regulation. Informal mechanisms may be traced to the efforts of communities, NGOs or the efforts of public-spirited individuals.

This unit outlines three sources of environmental law in the Indian context, namely the Constitution of India, legislation and judicial decisions.

2. Learning Outcome

This unit aims at the following outcomes:

Understand the legal scenario in India on environment and its protection;

Develop an understanding about the institutions for protecting the environment and their role; and

Provide an insight into the role of judiciary in developing environmental jurisprudence in India

3. The Constitution and Protection of the Environment

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. It is worth examining the scope of environmental protection envisaged under the Constitution.

To begin with, one may refer to the Constituent Assembly debates (see Divan &Rosencranz, 2001: 43-44). There was no specific discussion about regulation of the environment by Parliament or the state legislatures. The discussion centered on the division of legislative powers on the environment under the Government of India Act, 1935 and the differences expressed by those who wanted a strong Centre and those who preferred more powers to the states. Items of economic importance like fisheries and forests over which control was asserted both by the Centre and the statesbecame strongly contested. In the meeting of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly in July 1949, the Ministry of Agriculture wanted these items to be placed in the Concurrent List. It was argued by the Ministry that the country’s agricultural prosperity was dependent on forests and therefore activities by the states shall not be prejudicial to that common interest. However, this proposal faced stiff resistance from the provinces and heads of states. Therefore, forests were classified as a state subject. Fisheries find mention in the State List (item no.21). However, legislative competence on fisheries and fishing beyond territorial waters find mention in the Union List (item no.57).

Post-independence, any discussion on constitutional protection for the environment becomes incomplete without a reference to the distribution of legislative and executive powers envisaged in the Constitution. Parliament and state legislatures, the nodal agencies for law-making, are vested with legislative powers on the basis of items distributed in the three lists, namely, Union List (List I), State List (List II) and the Concurrent List (List III) in the Seventh Schedule. There are articles (for example, Article 252) in the Constitution, which in exceptional situations vest the Union/Central Government with powers to legislate on an item described in the State List. This is apart from the principles of interpretation followed in the Constitution regarding conflict between central and state laws.

A perusal of the items in the Seventh Schedule shows how different subject matters in relation to the environment are distributed across the three lists. Residuary powers of lawmaking in the Indian context are vested with the Union under Article 248. It may be true that the Constitution makers did not give priority to environmental protection in the sense in which it is understood today. However, the constitutional scheme includes many subject heads in the Lists, which are of crucial concern to protection of the environment today. Hurdles are posed due to the tension between the Centre and the states over who exactly could exercise the legislative power. For instance there is tension about water regulation, which is an item in the State List. Except for inter- state river water disputes, regulation of water sector is within the state jurisdiction. It is suggested to bring the water related items in the Concurrent List.

The Stockholm Conference on Human Environment, 1972 is a landmark achievement in environmental protection internationally. After participation in the Conference, India made serious inroads into environmental protection by introducing the 42nd amendment to the Constitution. Article 48-A was added to Part IV of the Constitution, which covers Directive Principles of State Policy. It reads as follows:

The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

During the LokSabha debates there were suggestions to vest the state with the duty to conserve and develop water, soil and other natural resources. Some others suggested that state should assure that protection of the environment would not harm tribal forest dwellers. In the RajyaSabha while welcoming the new Article, some members suggested mineral wealth to be included and governments to undertake adequate and effective measures to check environment pollution (Divan &Rosencranz, 2001: 45).

In the newly added chapter on Fundamental Duties, Article 51A(g) imposed a responsibility on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.

Often constitutional provisions, particularly Article 21 (right to life) is referred to for adjudication of environmental disputes. Part 4 of this unit analyses some of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court wherein the Court has referred to Article 21 as the basis for its decision.

Article 253 vests the power in Parliament to enact legislation to implement India’s international obligations. Based on this legislative power, the Central Government has enacted a number of legislation to protect the environment. The next section will discuss the legislation.

4. Environmental Legislation

Protection of the environment till the 1970s was piecemeal wherein provisions incidentally touched upon the environment (for example, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure). This trend changed in the 1970s wherein laws were made to prevent water pollution and to protect wildlife. In the 1980s, forest conservation and air pollution laws were passed. The Bhopal gas leak in 1984 paved the way for an umbrella legislation, namely, the Environment (Protection) Act in 1986 and amendments in the pollution laws and the laws dealing with hazardous activities.

Exercising the legislative power, the Centre and the states have adopted laws, rules and regulations in fields like the environment in general, and forests, pollution, wildlife, biodiversity, mines and minerals, coastal zones and public liability in particular. Institutions like the National Green Tribunal and state Pollution Control Boards have been set up through laws. Many a times the discussions focus on central laws. However, it may be pertinent to note that states too have initiated legislative efforts depending on their legislative power and local needs.

Apart from the exercise of their legislative powers, the legislatures are influenced by judicial decisions. The subsequent section will show how the initiatives of the Supreme Court were instrumental in influencing executive and legislative actions. Multilateral treaty obligations too have played an active role in moulding and amending legislation. The key features of some of the legislation are mentioned below.

4.1. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

The colonial rulers were drawn to wildlife for vested reasons. Some wild birds therefore enjoyed protection under the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1887. During the breeding season their possession or sale was prohibited. Later on, the Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act was passed in 1912 to prevent the excessive killing of birds and animals. After independence, Parliament enacted the Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972 on the request of states under Article 252 of the Constitution. This Act allows the central and state governments to establish national parks and sanctuaries for the protection and propagation of wildlife. In the subsequent years the Act also expanded its focus to prohibition and regulation of internal and international trade. The Ministry of Environment and Forests prepared a Manual on Wildlife in 2007 in order to assist the enforcement personnel in the implementation of the Act stringently. The Act was amended in 1993, 2002 and 2006.

A Bill for further amendment, namely, the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2013 has been introduced in the RajyaSabha. Due to increase in wildlife crime, the Tiger Task Force recommended stringent provisions for tackling the crime. The Committee constituted for examining the recommendations of the Tiger Task Force favoured the recommendation and also suggested amendments in the Act to make it consistent with the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973 (CITES). A separate chapter namely, Chapter VB is proposed for incorporating the CITES obligations under the proposed Amendment Bill.

For more information, please refer to the unit on ‘Wildlife Protection’ in the Environmental Law module.

4.2. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Water Act was enacted with the objective of prevention and control of water pollution in India. It aims at the maintaining or restoring of the wholesome nature of water.

Pollution

•contamination of water or such alteration of the physical,

The Act provides for constitution of State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB or the Board) with powers and functions, which include developing comprehensive plan for the prevention, control, or abatement of pollution, inspecting plants for the treatment of effluents and evolve economical and reliable methods for their treatment. The Board has the power to take samples of effluents, entry and inspection and the power to refuse or withdraw consent if the industry does not install treatment and disposal system. The Board is vested with powers to take emergency measures in the case of pollution of a stream or well and make application to the court for restraining apprehended pollution thereby. The Act envisages the Board to be bound by the directions given by the State Government or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

The Central Government shall be the final authority in decision making in cases where the direction given by the State Government is inconsistent with that of the CPCB. The State Government may supersede the SPCB in cases where the latter is in default in terms of performance of its duties or in the interests of public. Activities like the use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter are treated as offences and the Board may impose penalties accordingly. Similarly offences by companies and Government departments may also be subject to liability.

For more information, please refer to the unit on ‘Water Pollution’ in the Environmental Law module.

4.3.Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

The Air Act, 1981 is enacted as an outcome of the Stockholm Conference, 1972. It is implemented with the help of Rules.

The SPCBs constituted under the Act are envisaged to plan a comprehensive programme for prevention, control or abatement of air pollution and to secure its execution. The Board exercises power to grant consent to establish or operate some industrial plants. It also holds the power to make application to the court for restraining anyone from causing air pollution. The Board holds an advisory role vis-a-vis the State Government.

Provisions in relation to offences by the companies and Government departments are the same as those mentioned in the Water Act.

Under the Act, the State Government has the power to declare air pollution control areas. For instance, the entire area under the State of West Bengal is declared as an air pollution control area.

For more information, please refer to the unit on ‘Air Pollution’ in the Environmental Law module.

4.4. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Parliament enacted the Environment (Protection) Act in 1986 to give effect to the objectives of the Stockholm Conference, 1972. This legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the Bhopal disaster. It is an umbrella legislation followed by a set of rules, regulations and notifications, which include:

It is stipulated in the Act that rules or orders made therein shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment.

Under the Act, the Central Government has the power to take measures to protect and improve environment, to constitute authorities, to give directions, to enter and inspect, procure information from a State Government, etc. The scope for delegating powers and functions to any authority or State Government is envisaged. The Central Government has the power to make rules under the Act.

The Act characterizes certain activities like excess emission, handling hazardous substances in violation of procedural safeguards and obstruction of person empowered to enter and inspect as offences for which a penalty is imposed. The Act addresses offences committed by companies and Government departments separately. Cognizance of an offence can be taken on a complaint by the Central Government or any authority or person authorized in that behalf. The Act also provides that any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days of the alleged offence and his intention to make the complaint to the SPCB or any officer authorized in this behalf may also be considered. Section 22 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts with respect to any action taken by the duly competent authority under the Act.

For more information, please refer to the units on ‘Water Pollution’ and on ‘Air Pollution’ in the Environmental Law module.

4.5. Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was enacted subsequent to the Bhopal tragedy. Itprovides for immediate relief to victims of an accident while handling any hazardous substance.

Accident

•involves fortuitous, sudden or unintentional occurrence while

The Act vests liability on the owner on a no-fault basis for compensation. The owner is liable to take insurance policies and renew the same on expiry before he starts handling the hazardous substances. He is also liable to contribute to a Relief Fund.

State Governments are vested with the power to issue directions, which include the direction to prohibit or regulate the handling of any hazardous substance and the stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity, water or any other service. SPCBs hold the power to make an application to the court to restrain an owner from handling hazardous wastes. Offences by companies and Government departments are the same as those mentioned in the Water Act, 1974.

For more information, please refer to the unit on ‘Industrial Liability’ in the Environmental Law module.

4.6. Biological Diversity Act, 2002

In view of India’s rich reserves of biological resources and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s recognition of the sovereign rights of countries over their biological resources, India enacted the Biological Diversity Act in 2002 and the Rules in 2004. The Act aims to undertake and implement India’s obligations in accordance with the provisions of the CBD. The Act classifies users of biological diversity into two categories based on the involvement of foreign partners or institutions in the utilization of resources of India. For the first category, the Act provides for prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) if their uses are for research, commercial utilization or bio-survey and bio-utilization. Persons in the second classification (any citizen of India, body corporate, undertaking or organization registered in India) shall give prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board. The following categories who are citizens of India are exempted from this requirement:

• Local communities or people of the area
• Growers and cultivators of biodiversity
• Vaids and hakims practicing indigenous medicine

For more information, please refer to the units on ‘Biodiversity Law’ and on ‘Access and Benefit Sharing’in the Environmental Law module.

4.7.National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

The National Green Tribunal, which is set up under the Act of 2010, is the nodal authority to receive complaints from any one on an environmental dispute or for seeking compensation. The Tribunal has its principal place of sitting in Delhi with Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai as the zonal places of sitting. A time limit is prescribed for bringing disputes or compensation claims before the Tribunal. A decision from the Tribunal is appealable to the Supreme Court. The Tribunal consists of judicial members and experts from the field of the environment. The Tribunal is guided by the principles of natural justice.

Legislation like the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and mining laws are also significant in the discussion on environmental protection. The EIA and CRZ Notifications, Noise Pollution Regulations, Hazardous Substances (Handling) Rules and many other similar measures strengthen the legislative initiative.

For more information, please refer to the unit on Judicial Remedies in the Environmental Law module.

5. Judicial Decisions

The initial period of judicial remedies centered on tortuous and public nuisance claims (for instance, Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Sri Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622). Gradually writ petitions and Public Interest Litigations (PIL) were used to access the Supreme Court and High Courts to seek justice in environmental matters. This section analyses some of the decisions laid down by the Supreme Court of India.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, the Court was addressing the issue of closure and relocation of some units of Sriram Foods on the ground that such hazardous industries cannot be operating from populated areas. While this petition was pending, two instances of oleum gas leakage occurred from one of the units and the workmen and the public suffered. A PIL was filed for compensation to the victims. The Court for the first time laid down the rule of absolute liability by stating that an enterprise engaged in hazardous activity is a potential threat to the people working in the factory and those living in the nearby areas. Therefore, the enterprise owes an absolute duty to the community. In the event of an accident, such enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all the victims. This liability is not subject to any exception.

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP, (1986) Supp SCC 517, a PIL was filed under Article 32 for a direction banning all illegal mining operations in the Mussoorie Hills and surrounding areas due to adverse impact on the ecology of the area. In this case the Court held that it is for the government to decide in each case to what extent can the exploitation of mineral deposits be allowed at the cost of ecology based on appropriate advice. The Court reiterated that the task on environmental protection is not only the task of the government but also of every citizen under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.

In a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution concerning the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga by the tanneries of Kanpur, the Supreme Court observed that even though there are provisions under the Water Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, no preventive measures have been taken and therefore the Court may issue appropriate directions for the removal of such public nuisance.

Therefore, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463, the Court held that tanneries cannot function without fulfilling the minimum requirement of a primary treatment plant. Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages cannot be permitted to continue functioning, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be allowed to function as the adverse effects on the public outweigh the loss to the management and labour on its closure. In a further case, namely, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 471, the Court while dealing with water pollution of the river Ganga issued directions to the Nagar Mahapalikas which have jurisdiction over the areas through which the Ganga flows to submit to the SPCBs the plan regarding the disposal of waste, sewerage and treatment of trade effluents discharged into the river. The Court also held that it is the duty of the Central Government under Article 48A of the Constitution to introduce compulsory lessons on environmental protection in schools. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 358, the Court gave directions in order to spread awareness on environment protection through mass media, information films and educational courses.

In DahanuTaluk Environment Protection Group and Another v. BSES Co. Ltd, (1991) 2 SCC 539, a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution was filed seeking directions for setting up of a thermal power plant in an ecologically sensitive area. The Court held that it is primarily for the government concerned to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people and the necessity for the preservation of ecological balance, avoidance of deforestation, etc. that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen and experts and strike a just balance between these conflicting interests. The Court’s role is limited to examine whether the government has taken all relevant aspects into account and not been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations while arriving at the final decision. In this case, the Court held that the government had taken the decision after due consideration of material considerations and providing for sufficient safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. However the Court noted that if there is a request for relaxation of any condition, the petitioners must be given an opportunity to be heard.

In Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCR 21, Tarun Bharat Sangh, a voluntary organization, brought to the notice of the Court the widespread illegal mining carried on in the area declared as a Tiger Reserve in Alwar district of Rajasthan. The petitioner contended that this area is declared as a Tiger Reserve under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951 as a sanctuary and a National Park under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and as a protected forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. The petitioner contended that in spite of its protected status, the State Government granted licences for mining in the area in violation of the law. The Court held that the case involves allegations about the failure of the executive to do its duty by law and by the people when faced with the might of money. The Court held that once an area is declared as a protected forest, it falls within the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. No non-forest activity can be carried out even by the State Government except with the prior approval of the Central Government. Mining is a non-forest activity and granting of mining leases/licences and renewal of the same by the State Government without prior approval by the Central Government in the protected forest area after 1 January 1975 is contrary to law.

In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, a PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution about the discharge of untreated effluents by tanneries into agricultural lands and waterways in Tamil Nadu. The Court held that the state must adopt the principle of sustainable development keeping in view the Constitutional obligations under Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51A (g). In addition, the Court considered the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle as the essential components of the principle of sustainable development and as part of the environmental law of the country. The Court held that these principles are part of customary international law and since not inconsistent with the municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated into national law.

In S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 87, a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution with respect to the enforcement of the CRZ Notification, 1991. The petition was about intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The Court observed that traditional and improved traditional shrimp farming technologies are benign and pollution-free. However, the Court referred to the constitutional provisions and laws like the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its Rules, the Water Act, 1974, the Fisheries Act, 1897, the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to suggest that intensive and semi-intensive technologies cannot be permitted in prawn farming. The CRZ Notification was held to have overriding effect over other legislation since it is issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Court directed commercial shrimp industry in an ecologically fragile area to be scrutinized by a High Powered Authority under the Act and the need to conduct an environmental and social impact assessment. The Court held that this industry is neither directly related to waterfront nor directly needing foreshore facility. As far as the workmen were concerned, the Court directed the matter to be considered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (TajTapezium case), (1997) 2 SCC 353, the Court held that industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone using coke or coal are polluting industries therefore these industries have to convert to natural gas or must stop functioning and relocate themselves.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 312, taking note of the falling groundwater level, the Court directed the Central Government to appoint the Central Groundwater Board as an authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This Board would be empowered to regulate groundwater management and address the issue of indiscriminate boring and withdrawal of groundwater.

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, the petitioner contested the grant of a lease of riparian land to a private company for commercial purposes on the banks of the river Beas. The Court held that the lease amounted to a violation of the public trust doctrine, which means that State is the trustee of all natural resources to be used for the enjoyment of the general public. In this case the Court found that the construction was interfering with the natural flow of the river.

In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Naydu, (2001) 2 SCC 62, the Court held that the establishment of industries within the 10 kilometre radius of two major reservoirs of Andhra Pradesh, namely Osman Sagar and HimayatSagar, falls within clear prohibition and the State Government cannot grant exemption.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 756, the Court directed the phasing out of non-CNG buses and fixed the time limit for the switch over to CNG.

In M.C. Mehta v.Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118, the question which came up for consideration was whether mining activity up to 5 kilometres from the Delhi-Haryana Border on the Haryana side of the ridge and in the Aravalli Hills causes environmental degradation and if so what directions need to be issued. After a perusal of the background of the case and its previous orders, the Court heldthat the Aravalli Hill range needs to be protected at any cost. Therefore mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of sustainable development and on compliance of stringent conditions.

Inre Noise Pollution case, AIR 2005 SC 3136, the Supreme Court examined the implications of noise pollution vis -à-vis Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court dealt with the noise pollution caused by firecrackers, loud speakers and vehicles in the light of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and its own previous decisions. Accordingly, the Court issued direction to the states to make provisions for seizure and confiscation of loud speakers, amplifiers and other devices causing noise pollution beyond the permissible levels. As per Rule 3, ambient air quality standards are to be prescribed for different areas and a categorization of the areas accordingly for implementation. The Court directed the Central and State Governments to implement these rules wherever it is not done. The Court stated the need to create public awareness about the hazardous effects of noise pollution.

In G. Sundarrajan v.Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620,the appeals from the Madras High Court were concerned with setting up of a nuclear power plant in Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court noted that the Government of India set up a 15 member expert group to study the matter and allay the fears of the general public. The State Government also appointed an Expert Committee. Both Committees were satisfied with the safety and security of the plant and environmental safeguards. Accordingly, the Court held that KKNPP has been set up and made functional based on the principle of sustainable development and its impact on ecology has been taken care of keeping in view national and international environmental principles.

The close relationship between protection of the environment and management of natural resources is well explained by the Court in Reliance Natural Resources Ltd v.Reliance Industries Ltd, (2010) 7 SCC

1. The Court stated that inter-generational equity is part of the constitutional jurisprudence on equality and sustainable development and protection of the environment are pre-conditions for the use of nature. The Court reminded the Government of India to frame a comprehensive legislation on energy security and supply of natural gas under production sharing contracts.

In T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad v.Union of India (2014), http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1/aspx?filename=41309, a PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of the people living in and around the Nilgiri forests on the Western Ghats. The petitioner challenged the validity of the actions by the state authorities which amount to destruction of the tropical rain forests of the region which he alleged were a clear violation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980, the Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of Trees Act, 1955 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Reiterating the public trust doctrine, the Court held that common properties like rivers, seashore, forest and the air are held by the Government in trust for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. It criticized the way afforestation fund is utilised by the state governments.

6. Summary

The national environmental law of India has its formal sources in the Constitution, legislation, rules, regulations and judicial decisions. The right to life guaranteed under Article 21, the duty of the State under Article 48-A and the fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India are important in the discussion on environment protection. Constitutional provisions on legislative powers empower the Central and State Legislatures to enact laws aimed at environment protection. Article 253 of the Constitution vests power in the Centre to make laws to implement India’s international obligations.

India has enacted a number of legislation since 1970. The colonial legislation on protection of birds, wildlife and forests are either amended or supplemented with legislation in post-independent India. Now there are laws in general on environmental protection, wildlife, forest conservation, biodiversity, water and air pollution, mining, liability and hazardous substances. The Central Government has also made Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) mandatory for developmental activities. The CRZ Notification addresses the issue of usage of coastal areas, which in turn would highlight the importance of eco-tourism apart from pollution. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has brought in a new adjudicatory mechanism to resolve disputes and determine compensation issues. The Tribunal’s decisions are subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of India many a times has shown an active interest in environmental protection and adjudicated inter alia on the legitimacy of developmental activities having an impact on environment. The Court has extensively used Article 21 of the Constitution to provide relief to the parties and thereby link environment with human rights. The Court at times criticized the lack of execution of laws by the concerned authorities. The Court introduced doctrines like the public trustdoctrine to highlight the significance of common properties. Principles of international environmental law like sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and intergenerational equity were applied to adjudicate the matter. However, the Court restrained itself in some of the cases where it took the position that if the government has duly followed the procedures and laws, the Court shall not perform the role assigned to the executive.

References

• Divan, Shyam and Armin Rosencranz. Environmental Law and Policy in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Weblinks

• www.moef.nic.in
• www.greentribunal.gov.in