|
Abstract
Environment plays a pivotal role in human life as well as in the
development of society. With growing technological advancement and
industrialization, the purity of the environment has been
threatened to an appalling extent. The need to protect and improve
the environment is so compelling for the peaceful survival of
mankind and other life forms on planet Earth that right to
environment has emerged as a human right.
This paper commences with the diverse ingredients of Indian
environmental jurisprudence. A highlight of international efforts
in combating environment related problems is also made.
Ultimately, the author throws light on the Indian experience of
environmental law and its resultant tool of the human right to
live in a clean and healthy
environment.
I. Introduction
Over the last two decades, the Indian judiciary has fostered an
extensive and innovative approach to environmental rights in the
country. Complex matters of environmental management have been
resolved and consequently a series of innovative procedural
remedies have evolved to accompany this new substantive right. The
new environmental right is therefore championed as a legal gateway
to speedy and inexpensive legal remedy.
The notional
expansion of right to life was recognized even in the absence of a
specific reference to direct violations of the fundamental right.
Placed in a nutshell, the human right culture has percolated down
to Indian human right regime within a short period of time. An
interdisciplinary approach to environmental protection may be
another reason for the operation of the right to healthy
environment. This has been undertaken through international
environmental treaties & conventions, national legislative
measures and in judicial responses.
On undertaking
a comprehensive study of environmental law, it can be found that
the Indian scenario is replete with examples of preserving the
environment from degradation.
II. History of Environmental Protection
in Ancient India
An appraisal of the historical background to environmental
protection in India would indicate that forests & wildlife were
considered as vital ingredients of the global system. Here, the
entire scheme of environmental preservation was essentially
duty-based. In this sense, the ancient Indian society accepted the
protection of the environment as its duty to do so.
Hindu Era
Opening up the Hindu mythology, the Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads and
other ancient scriptures of the Hindu religion have given a
detailed description of trees, plants, wildlife and their
importance to people. Yajnavalkya Smriti prohibited the cutting of
trees by prescribing punishment for such acts. Kautalya's Arthashastra, written in the Mauryan period, realised the
necessity of forest administration and Ashoka's 5th Pillar Edict
expressed his view about the welfare of creatures in the State.
Evidence from civilizations of Mohenjadaro and Harappa has further
proved that the small population lived in consonance with the
ecosystem and their needs maintained harmony with the environment.
Thus, the Hindu society was conscious of the adverse environmental
effects caused by deforestation and extinction of animal species.
Mughal Era
In Islam, there is close harmony between man and nature. However,
during the Medieval period, the only contribution of Mughal
emperors has been the establishment of magnificent gardens, fruit
orchards and green parks, which were used as holiday resorts,
palaces of retreat or temporary headquarters during the summer
season. The common opinion of environmentalists has been that
the Mughal emperors, though were great lovers of nature and took
delight in spending their spare time in the lap of natural
environment, made no attempts on forest conservation.
British Era
The British conquest in India brought about a plunder of natural
resources coupled with a complete indifference towards
environmental protection. A general survey of early environmental
legislation reveals that apart from the forest laws, nineteenth
century legislation also partially regulated two other aspects of
Indian environment �C water pollution and wildlife. These laws,
however, had a narrow purpose and limited territorial reach.
Some of the
early efforts include the enactment of the Shore Nuisance (Bombay
and Kolaba) Act of 1853 and the Oriental Gas Company Act of 1857.
The Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860, imposed a fine on a person
who voluntarily
fouls the
water of any public spring or reservoir. In addition, the Code penalised negligent acts with
poisonous substances that endangered life or caused injury and
proscribed public nuisances. Laws aimed at controlling air
pollution were the Bengal Smoke Nuisance Act of 1905 and the
Bombay Smoke Nuisance Act of 1912. In the field of wildlife
protection, early legislation was limited to specific areas and
particular species, thereby aiming at the conservation of
biodiversity.
It is clear
that legislative measures were taken by the British Government for
prevention of pollution and for conservation of natural resources.
Although critics point out that the British enacted these
legislations, not with the object of protecting the environment
but with the aim of earning revenue for themselves, it should be
regarded as the first step towards the scientific conservation of
natural resources. Despite the fact that these measures were made
with ulterior motives, British-enacted legislations have
contributed significantly to the growth of environmental
jurisprudence in India.
III. International Efforts
Economists see a world economy that has grown by leaps and
bounds over the last half-century, but ecologists see growth based
on the burning of vast quantities of cheap fossil fuels, which is destabilising
the climate.- Lester R. Brown
Rapid
economic, scientific and technological advancements have shown
massive repercussions in the form of degradation of ecological
balances. Due to large scale occurrence of environmental crises,
the global community has expressed major concern over
environmental protection and environmental development. Amidst
some serious endeavors, significant developments took place in the
international scenario.
United Nations Conference on Human
Environment
In the backdrop of some sincere efforts of tackling pollution
control, for the first time, the attention of the world was drawn
towards environment in the United Nations Conference on Human
Environment was held at Stockholm in June 1972. The Declaration on
Human Environment was passed containing twenty-six principles,
with the main object of overcoming environmental problems related
to the development of States and to provide clean & healthy living
conditions.
An important
aspect of the Stockholm Declaration was a strategy to draft an
action plan for the development of human environment. Moreover,
the declaration stated that economic and social development were
necessary for ensuring a healthy environment for man. This, in
turn, has been called the Magna Carta on environment from which
two important conclusions can be reached:
v Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate
conditions of life in an environment of quality that permits a
life of dignity and well-being; and v Man bears a solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present
and future generation.
United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development In the last decade, the
most revolutionary step towards the preservation of the
environment was the Earth Summit convened by the UN General
Assembly at Rio de Janeiro from 3rd to 14th June, 1992. The
Conference saw the largest gathering of world leaders ever in the
history - deliberating and chalking out a blue print for the
survival of the planet. It added a new dimension on the issues of
environment and development in international negotiations.
The main
objective of the Summit was to find an equitable balance between
the economic, social and environmental needs of present and future
generations and to lay down a foundation for global partnership
between developed & developing countries, on one hand, as well as
governmental agencies & private organisations. Amongst the
tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the signing of two
conventions, one on biological diversity and another on climate
change.
World
Summit on Sustainable Development
The World Summit on Sustainable Development was held at
Johannesburg, where after 10 years of the Rio Conference, the
Summit reaffirmed sustainable development as a central element of
the international agenda and gave new impetus to global action to
fight poverty and protect environment. The Summit's plan of
implementation is a seventy-one page document that is intended to
set the world's environmental agenda for the next ten years and
is expected to be a model for future international agreements. The
plan of implementation aims at building further on the
achievements made at UNCED and make commitment to undertake
actions and measures at all levels to implement Rio principles and
Agenda 21.
IV. Impact in India
In the early years of Indian independence, there was no precise
environmental policy. Government tried to make attempts only from
time to time as per the growing needs of the society. The period
of 1970s witnessed a lot of changes in policies and attitudes of
the Indian Government when its attitude changed from environmental
indifference to greater and subsequently, manifold steps were
taken to improve environmental conditions.
National
Committee on Environmental Planning and Coordination The year 1972
marks a watershed in the history of environmental management in
India. This is because prior to 1972, environmental concerns such
as sewage disposal, sanitation and public health were dealt with
by different federal ministries and each pursued these objectives
in the absence of a proper coordination system at the federal or
the intergovernmental level. When the twenty-fourth UN General
Assembly decided to convene a conference on the human environment
in 1972, and requested a report from each member country on the
state of environment, a Committee on human environment under the
chairmanship of Pitambar Pant, member of the Planning Commission,
was set up to prepare India's report. With the help of the
reports, the impact of the population explosion on the natural
environment and the existing state of environmental problems were
examined.
By early 1972,
it had been realised that unless a national body was established
to bring about greater coherence and coordination in environmental
policies & programmes and to integrate environmental concerns, an
important lacuna would remain in India's planning process. Consequently, as a result of the major issues highlighted
by the reports, a National Committee on Environmental Planning and
Coordination (NCEPC) was established in the Department of Science
and Technology.
The NCEPC is
an apex advisory body in all matters relating to environmental
protection and improvement. At its inception, the Committee
consisted of fourteen members drawn from various disciplines
concerning environmental management. Most of the non-official
members were specialists. The Committee was to plan and
coordinate, but the responsibility for execution remained with
various ministries and government agencies.
Environmental Legislations
As part of its campaign on green environment, Indian Parliament
has enacted nation wide comprehensive laws. One of the major
environmental enactments came just two years after the Stockholm
Conference in 1974. The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act was passed for the purpose of prevention and
control of water pollution and for maintaining and restoring the
wholesomeness of water. The Water Act represented India's first
attempt to deal with an environmental issue from a legal
perspective.
From this
period onwards, the Central Government has been considered as
highly environmentally active. In 1976, the Constitution of India
was amended to insert a separate fundamental duties chapter. The
1980s witnessed the creation of many eco-specific organizations.
In the year 1980, the Forest (Conservation) Act was passed for the
conservation of forests and to check on further deforestation. The
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 was enacted
by invoking the Central Government's power under Art 253. The Air
Act contained several distinguishing features. The preamble of the
Air Act explicitly reveals that the Act represents an
implementation of the decisions made at the Stockholm Conference.
Also, a notification relating to Noise Pollution (Regulation &
Control) Rules was made in the year 2000 with the objective of
maintaining Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of noise.
In the wake of
the Bhopal gas tragedy, the Government of India enacted the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The laws that existed prior to
the enactment of EPA essentially focused on specific pollution
(such as air and water). The need for a single authority which
could assume the lead role for environmental protection was
answered through the enactment of EPA. It is in the form of an
umbrella
legislation
designed to provide a framework for Central Government to
coordinate the activities of various central and state authorities
established under previous laws. It is also in the form of an
enabling law,
which delegates wide powers to the executive to enable bureaucrats
to frame necessary rules and regulations.
Apart from
this, several notifications and rules have also been made, some of
which include the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules
in 1989, the Biomedical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules in
1998, Recycled Plastics (Manufacture and Usage) Rules 1999,
Environment (Silting for Industrial Projects) Rules 1999 and the
Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules in 2000.In
addition to these eco-specific legislations, realising that there
is no comprehensive legislation dealing with biodiversity in
India, and to fulfil its international obligation under the
Convention on Bio-Diversity, the Government of India has enacted
the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
It is a
paradox that despite the presence of such diverse laws, the
pollution rate has crossed the dead line. This is probably because
of the reason that the law is so complicated and vague that even
the expert may not know the intricacies of it.
IV. Constitutional Mandate on
Environmental Protection
The Constitution of India originally adopted, did not contain any
direct and specific provision regarding the protection of natural
environment. Perhaps, the framers of the Indian Constitution, at
that time, considered it as a negligible problem. That is probably
why it did not even contain the expression
environment.
However, in fact it contained only a few Directives to the State
on some aspects relating to public health, agriculture and animal
husbandry. These Directives were and are still not judicially
enforceable.
Nevertheless,
on a careful analysis of various provisions prior to the 42nd
Constitutional Amendment, reveals that some of the Directive
Principles of State Policy showed a slight inclination towards
environmental protection. It can be inferred from Art 39(b), Art
47, Art 48 and Art 49 . These directive principles individually
and collectively impose a duty on the State to create conditions
to improve the general health level in the country and to protect
and improve the natural environment.
Regarding the
expression
material resources of the community present in Art
39(b) it was held in
Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India that
material resources embraces all things, which are capable of
producing wealth for the community. It has been held to include
such resources in the hands of the private persons and not only
those, which have already vested in the State.
The Supreme
Court in Municipal Council,
Ratlam v. Vardhichand
observed that
the State will realise
that Art 47 makes it a paramount principle of governance that are
steps taken for the improvement of public health as amongst its primary duties
From these
Articles, one can understand that the Constitution of India was
not as environmentally blind as suggested by some eminent jurists.
Though the word environment was not expressly used in the
Constitution, the object of the above Articles was to conserve the
natural resources, thereby protecting the environment. However, it
must be accepted that only with the strengthening of public
interest litigations and an enhanced commitment from the Central
Government during the late 1970s, did an expansion of
constitutional provisions to include aspects relating to the
environment take place.
Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment
Taking note of the Stockholm Conference and the growing awareness
of the environmental crises, the Indian Constitution was amended
in the year 1976. This gave it an environmental dimension and
added to it direct provisions for the preservation of ecological
and biological diversity.
Art 48A, a
directive principle, was inserted into Part IV of the
Constitution, reading as follows:
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment
and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country. Correspondingly, an obligation was imposed on the State
through Art 51 A(g) in Part IVA, casts a duty on every citizen of
India stating:
It
shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
In M.K.
Janardhanam v. District Collector, Tiruvallur, the Madras High
Court has observed that
the phrase
used (in Art 48A and Art 51A) is
protect and
improve
which implies that the phrase appears to contemplate affirmative
governmental action to improve the quality of the environment and
not just to preserve the environment in its degraded form.
Therefore, the constitution makes two fold provisions - On one
hand, it gives directive to the State for the protection and
improvement of environment and on the other, it casts a duty on
every citizen to help in the preservation of natural environment.
Role of Judiciary
The judiciary, to fulfill its constitutional obligations was and
is always prepared to issue
appropriate orders, directions and
writs against those persons who cause environmental pollution and
ecological imbalance. This is evident from a plethora of cases
decided by starting from the Ratlam Municipality Case. This case
provoked the consciousness of the judiciary to a problem which had
not attracted much attention earlier. The Supreme Court responded
with equal anxiety and raised the issue to come within the mandate
of the Constitution.
The Supreme
Court, in
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.
ordered the closure of certain limestone quarries causing large
scale pollution and adversely affecting the safety and health of
the people living in the area. Likewise, in
M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India , the court directed an industry manufacturing hazardous and
lethal chemicals and gases posing danger to health and life of
workmen and people living in its neighbourhood, to take all
necessary safety measures before reopening the plant. In an
attempt to maintain the purity and holiness of the River Ganga,
tanneries polluting the sacred river were ordered to be closed
down.
Holding that
the Government has no power to sanction lease of the land vested
in the Municipality for being used as open space for public use,
the Supreme Court in
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, the Court
explicitly held that:
The word
environment
is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit hygienic
atmosphere and ecological balance. It is therefore, not only the
duty of the State but also duty of every citizen to maintain
hygienic environment. The State, in particular has duty in that
behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled sovereign power and
to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic
environment
Moreover in
S. Jagannath v. Union of India , the Supreme Court has held that
setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas and
in ecologically fragile coastal areas has an adverse effect on the
environment, coastal ecology and economics and hence, they cannot
be permitted to operate. In
Vijay Singh Puniya
v. State of Rajasthan,
the High Court of Rajasthan it was observed that
any person who
disturbs the ecological balance or degrades, pollutes and tinkers
with the gifts of nature such as air, water, river, sea and other
elements of the nature, he not only violates the fundamental right
guaranteed under Art 21 of the Constitution, but also breaches the
fundamental duty to protect the environment under Art 51A (g).
Judicial
activism in India provides an impetus to the campaign against
pollution. The path for people's involvement in the judicial
process has been shown. If this had not been done so, the system
would have collapsed and crumbled under the burden of its
insensitivity.
V.
Fundamental Right to Live in a Healthy Environment
Man's paradise is on earth; This living world is the beloved
place of all; It has the blessings of Nature's bounties: Live in
a lovely spirit. - Atharva Veda (5.30.6)
The right to live in a clean and healthy environment is not a
recent invention of the higher judiciary in India. The right has
been recognised by the legal system and the judiciary in
particular for over a century or so. The only difference in the
enjoyment of the right to live in a clean and healthy environment
today is that it has attained the status of a fundamental right
the violation of which, the Constitution of India will not permit.
It was only
from the late eighties and thereafter, various High Courts and the
Supreme Court of India have designated this right as a fundamental
right. Prior to this period, as pointed out earlier, people had
enjoyed this right not as a constitutionally guaranteed
fundamental right but as a right recognised and enforced by the
courts under different laws like Law of Torts, Indian Penal Code,
Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code etc. In today's
emerging jurisprudence, environmental rights which encompass a
group of collective rights are described as third generation
rights.
Right to
Environment -
C Derived from the Right to LifeRight to life,
implies the right to live without the deleterious invasion of
pollution, environmental pollution, environmental degradation and
ecological imbalances. Everyone has the right to life and a right
standard of living adequate for health & well being of himself and
of his family. States should recognise everybody's right to an
adequate standard and to continuous improvement of living
conditions. Thus, inherent right to life shall be protected by
law.
Principle 1 of
the declaration of UN Conference on Human Environment, 1972
proclaimed that
man has the fundamental right to freedom,
equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment of a
quality that permits a life of dignity and well being. After
this Stockholm Declaration, references to a right to decent,
healthy and viable environment was incorporated in several Global
and Regional Human Rights Treaties and in resolutions of
International Organisations.
Right to Environment
-
C As a Fundamental Right guaranteed in
Indian Constitution
Environmental values or rights may be constitutionalised either
explicitly by amending the constitution or implicitly by
interpreting the existing constitutional language to include
environmental protection. Immediately after the Stockholm
Declaration, there was a growing trend in national legal systems
to give constitutional status to environmental protection. India
followed in the pursuit by amending the Constitution to include
environment specific provisions in 1976. The birth of right to
environment was the direct result of an inclusion these additional
provisions.
The Indian
Supreme Court, being one of the most active judiciaries in the
world, also created a landmark in the quest of international
judicial activism by developing the concept of right to healthy
environment as a part of right to life under Art 21 of our
Constitution. Art 21 reads as follows:
No person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law.
Thus, in
India, the higher judiciary has interpreted Art 21 to give it an
expanded meaning of including the right to a clean, safe and
healthy environment. Class actions have been entertained by the
Supreme Court under Art 32 of the Constitution as being part of
public interest litigation actions. The High Courts, also being
granted this jurisdiction under Art 226 have intervened by passing
writs, orders and directions in appropriate cases, thereby giving
birth to an incomparable environmental jurisprudence in the form
of the constitutional right to healthy environment. A
chronological analysis of the environmental mission of the courts
has been undertaken in order to explicate the development of the
ideology of right to environment as being part of the right to
life in the Indian context.
Keeping this
in regard, the first case of considerable importance is the Ratlam
Municipality case. The matter came up by way of a criminal appeal,
where the Supreme Court gave directions for the removal of open
drains and for prevention of public excretion by the slum
dwellers. In giving the judgement, the Court relied upon Art 47 in
Part IV of the Constitution. The decision given by the Supreme
Court in
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal
, seemed to be
narrowing the level of scrutiny as opposed to enlarging it to
include the all pervasive environmental dimension. In this case,
the proposal for the construction lodging by the Taj Group of
Hotels, amidst the zoological gardens of Allipore, for improving
tourism in West Bengal was accepted by the Government and
subsequently, when the case appeared before the Supreme Court, the
decision of the Tourism Ministry was upheld. The Court justified
its stand that appropriate considerations had been borne in mind
and irrelevancies were excluded.
However, one
must not be misled in thinking that the decision of the court in
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal suppressed its activist
nature. This decision is no longer an authority as the limited
nature of scrutiny is not followed by the Courts of the present
years. Independent specialists and expert committees are appointed
in order to determine whether the claims of the aggrieved parties
are actually genuine to be addressable in court. On the basis of
the report of the Bandopadhyay Committee, in
Rural Litigation
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., a case relating to the
exploitation of limestone from the Dehradun area and its adverse
effect on the ecology and environment, the Supreme Court stated
that
environment
assets are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be
exhausted in one generation....Preservation of the environment and
keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only
Governments but also every citizen must undertake.
Absolute
liability for the harm caused by an industry engaged in hazardous
and inherently dangerous activities became a newly formulated
doctrine, free from the exceptions to the strict liability rule.
As a result, the exceptions to the strict liability rule are no
longer applicable in India in those cases determining the
liability of hazardous and inherently dangerous industries. Thus,
in a passive way, the right of citizens to live in a wholesome and
healthy environment was recognized and steps were taken to protect
them from the hazards of polluting industries.
For the first
time in the case of Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court
declared that the right to life under Art 21 includes the right to
clean water and air. In the same case, the rule of locus standi
was enlarged so that the court could take cognizance of
environmental degradation and regulate the prevention of the same
in an effective manner. In
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, the
Apex Court conformed that for every citizen, there exists a
constitutional right to healthy environment and further conferred
a mandatory duty on the state to protect and preserve this human
right. Another landmark and revolutionary judgement is Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, a case
concerned serious damage by certain industries producing toxic
chemicals to the environment of Bichhri District in Rajasthan.
Directions for the closure of the industry were given and the
decision in the Oleum Gas Leak case regarding absolute liability
for pollution by hazardous industries was reaffirmed. Moreover,
the polluter pays principle was explicitly applied for the first
time in the Bichhri case.
A foundation
for the application of the Precautionary Principle, the Polluter
Pays Principle and Sustainable Development, having been laid down,
the three principles were applied together for the first time in
by the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of
India, a case concerning pollution being cause due to the
discharge of untreated effluents from tanneries in the state of
Tamil Nadu. The Court, referring to the precautionary principle,
polluter pays principle and the new concept of onus of proof,
supported with the constitutional provisions of Art. 21, 47, 48A
and 51A (g) and declared that these doctrines have become part of
the environmental law of the country.
The Public
Trust Doctrine, evolved in
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, states that
certain common properties such as rivers, forests, seashores and
the air were held by Government in Trusteeship for the free and
unimpeded use of the general public. Granting lease to a motel
located at the bank of the River Beas would interfere with the
natural flow of the water and that the State Government had
breached the public trust doctrine.
A matter
regarding the vehicular pollution in Delhi city, in the context of
Art 47 and 48 of the Constitution came up for consideration in
M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case). It was held
to be the duty of the Government to see that the air did not
become contaminated due to vehicular pollution. The Apex court
again confirming the right to healthy environment as a basic human
right, stated that the right to clean air also stemmed from Art 21
which referred to right to life. This case has served to be a
major landmark because of which lead-free petrol supply was
introduced in Delhi. There was a complete phasing out old
commercial vehicles more than 5 years old as directed by the
courts. Delhi owes its present climatic conditions to the attempt
made to maintain clean air.
In the very
recent case of
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union of India,
a case concerning conservation of forests, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal,
held: ...Considering the compulsions of the States and the
depletion of forest, legislative measures have shifted the
responsibility from States to the Centre. Moreover any threat to
the ecology can lead to violation of the right of enjoyment of
healthy life guaranteed under Art 21, which is required to be
protected. The Constitution enjoins upon this Court a duty to
protect the environment.
Following a
long course of active interpretation of constitutional and
legislative clauses by the judiciary and vigorous efforts of some
green citizens, the Indian environmental scenario has undergonen a
positive change. The Indian environmental jurisprudence was in a
deep slumber. But today, the environmental consciousness imported
by the courts, mingled with subsequent legislative efforts in the
later years, introduced the right to environment as a fundamental
right.
VI. Conclusion
There has been a paradigm shift over the concept of right to
environment since the last three decades, primarily after a series
of global cooperative initiatives. Among these, the Stockholm
Conference played a significant role in throwing light on
environmental degradation that has been caused worldwide. As a
result, the international stature of environmental & ecological
balance has been enhanced to such a level which the countries of
the world had never imagined in history.
The Courts in
India have played a distinguishing role in gradually enlarging the
scope of a qualitative living by applying various issues of
environmental protection. Consequently, activities posing a major
threat to the environment were curtailed so as to protect the
individual's inherent right to wholesome environment. Art 21 has
been relied in the plethora of cases, although certain cases have
incorporated a wider perspective of the Constitution.
Hence, the
Supreme Court of India, apart from being environmental friendly,
has given birth to a wide range of doctrines and principles have
inturn been adopted and implemented throughout the country. It
would be apt to conclude with the words of Luc Ferry who said
that:
The world we
have treated as an object, has become a subject again.
|
An
Appraisal Of Environmental Law:
More
Articles:
The
author can be reached at: sangeethamugunthan@legalserviceindia.com /
