Centre for Environmental Law WWF-1 v/s Union of India

Introduction

The Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I Vs. Union of India and Others[1] It was a public interest petition filed in 1995 by the World-Wide Fund for Nature-India, a premier wildlife conservation institution. The writ petition brought to the notice of the Supreme Court of India the rapid degradation taking place in protected areas, assigning the non-implementation of the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as the primary cause for this degradation.

The Petitioners sought a direction to the Respondents, i.e. the Union government, State governments, and their respective Collectors, to discharge the duty entrusted to them under Sections 19 to 25 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972[2]. The said provisions of law lay down the procedure for the settlement of rights in protected areas, i.e., Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks.

This Act provides for the protection of the country’s wild animals, birds and plant species, to ensure environmental and ecological security. Among other things, the Act lays down restrictions on hunting many animal species. The Act was last amended in the year 2006.

Facts And Case History

Filed in 1995 as a writ petition under Article 32 by the Centre for Environmental Law, a unit of the World-Wide Fund for Nature India, this petition right from the start projected itself as a ‘public interest litigation’ or PIL. At the time of filing, the 1991 amendments to the WPA had already come into force. Apart from invoking several provisions of the Constitution of India in support of their submission that fundamental rights were being violated, the Petitioners made several submissions in their petition based on an analysis of the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Rapid decline of India’s wild animals and birds was brought to the attention of the court along with the inadequacy of the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 (8 of 1912)[3] And other existing State laws, the Indian Parliament enacted the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. A total of 526 National Parks and Sanctuaries were notified under Section 18/ 35 of the Act.

Procedure For Declaration Of Protected Areas

• The Act lays down the entire procedure as contained in Sections 19 to 25, for declaring and creating National Parks and Sanctuaries.
• After issuance of a notification under Section 18, the Collector must inquire into and determine the rights of any person over the land.
• The respondent State governments, after issuing the notification under Section 18, have omitted and neglected to conclude the declaration proceedings as contemplated from Section 19 onwards.

Constitutional Arguments

Reliance on Article 48A of the Constitution of India[4] makes it obligatory on the state to protect wildlife and forests. Further, the petition argued “that wildlife and forest form part and parcel of Article 21. In other words, Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to life and all that goes along with it.

Also, relying on the concept of intergenerational equity, the petitioner argued that “the omission to act, on the part of the respondent, raises a very fundamental question of intergenerational equity, in terms of the rights of the child of the present generation and those of the future, to inherit the environment. It was further urged that Articles 39(a), (b) and (f) read along with Articles 21 and 14 clearly establish a constitutional mandate for intergenerational equity.

International Conventions Relied Upon

• Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989;
• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 1971;
• Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972.
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973.
• Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979.
• Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.

Judicial Precedents Relied Upon

The petitioner relied upon earlier decisions of the Supreme Court:

• State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan[5] — regarding environmental degradation;
• Shri Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal[6] — on the urgent need to address the widespread extinction of wild animals and their habitat;
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[7] — regarding the issuance of appropriate directions by the Court where it finds that a public nuisance or other wrongful acts affecting or likely to affect the public.

Analysis

The Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India case is one of those rare instances where the judiciary consciously decided to bridge the gap between law and governance. What stands out here is not just the enforcement of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, but the Supreme Court’s willingness to take on an active supervisory role to ensure that environmental law did not remain a dead letter. This case, at its core, demonstrates how environmental protection in India evolved from being a policy goal to becoming a constitutional necessity.

Judicial Shift from Passive Interpretation to Active Governance

Traditionally, courts act as interpreters, not implementers. But in this case, the Supreme Court assumed the role of an enforcer, using the PIL jurisdiction to correct executive paralysis.

• The State governments had laws on paper but no implementation.
• The Court converted the case into a continuing mandamus.
• Periodic directions ensured monitoring and accountability.

This move was crucial because biodiversity loss is not a one-time event; it’s a gradual process of neglect. The Court understood that enforcement, monitoring, and accountability needed constant judicial pressure.

Critics argue that the judiciary overstepped into the executive domain. Yet, in a country where environmental neglect thrives, such judicial activism was necessary.

The Case as a Turning Point in Constitutional Environmentalism

This judgment pushed Indian environmental law deeper into the constitutional realm. The Court’s reading of Article 21 as covering all living beings reflects a major shift.

Earlier cases like M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum extended Article 21 for human benefit. WWF-India went further—recognizing nature as a constitutional beneficiary.

Ecocentrism vs. Anthropocentrism: A Philosophical Correction

The Court rejected anthropocentrism and asserted humans are part of nature, not masters of it.

• Anthropocentric model = Nature protected for human benefit
• Ecocentric model = Nature protected as ethical duty

This shift encourages accountable development—not anti-development, but responsible, sustainable growth.

Strengthening the Rule of Law in Environmental Governance

The judgment enforced existing laws rather than creating new ones. The Wildlife (Protection) Act already mandated procedures, but States hadn’t acted.

Directions included:

• Arming forest guards
• Forming Wildlife Advisory Boards
• Ensuring sanctuary notifications and rights settlement

This revived institutional accountability and strengthened rule of law in environmental governance.

Judicial Law-Making and Its Limits

While critics warn against judicial overreach, Indian environmental law is largely judge-made due to administrative inertia.

However:

• Court orders are catalysts, not permanent solutions
• Long-term conservation requires administrative reform
• Judicial activism fills governance gaps but cannot substitute governance

Integration of International Law into Domestic Jurisprudence

The Court harmonized treaties like CITES and CBD with the WPA, aligning with Article 51(c) and global conservation obligations.

Intergenerational Equity and Future Rights

Environmental degradation violates not just present citizens’ rights, but those of future generations.

Article 21 now includes the right to inherit a balanced environment, reinforcing intergenerational justice.

Critique: The Problem of Implementation

Despite visionary directions, challenges persist:

• Delays in rights settlement
• Political interference
• Limited resources and corruption

Judicial monitoring ensures pressure but can’t replace systemic environmental governance capacity.

The Case’s Broader Legacy

This case influenced landmark decisions like:

• Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja (2014) — Animal rights under Article 21
• Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) — Ecological sustainability standard
• T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India — Forest conservation jurisprudence

The Supreme Court established biodiversity protection as a constitutional mandate rooted in justice for humans, animals, and ecosystems.

Decision by The Supreme Court

The Apex Court called for programmes of immunisation of animals living near or around sanctuaries and national parks, to protect them from infectious disease. The court directed the veterinary centres to undertake these programmes in the neighbourhood of the protected area. Besides, the need was felt to control effectively the growing menace of poaching in the sanctuaries/national parks. The court issued further direction to the central government as well as the state governments/UT administrations to equip the forest guards with modern arms, communication facilities, viz, wireless sets, and other necessary equipment within six months. The rational for such an exercise was that likely contact between the wild animals and other living creatures in the neighbourhood of a sanctuary may result in wild animals contracting diseases from the latter.

This writ petition was treated as a continuing mandamus by the Supreme Court. A number of interim orders of far-reaching consequence have been passed by the Court in this case. These orders have impacted not only the management of national parks and sanctuaries in the country but have also left their mark on the development of wildlife conservation policy. Like a variety of other PILs relating to environmental and human rights issues, which have been pursued as continuing mandamus, this case too comes up for hearing at regular intervals.

Interim Order Dated 22.8.1997

One of the early orders passed by the Court on 22.8.1997 directed that “Even though notifications in respect of sanctuaries/national parks have been issued under section 18/35 in all States/ Union Territories, further proceedings as required under the Act, i.e. issue of proclamation under section 21 and other steps as contemplated by the Act have not been taken. The concerned State Governments/ Union Territories are directed to proclaim section 21 in respect of the sanctuaries/national parks within two months and complete the process of determination of rights and acquisition of lands or rights as contemplated by the Act within a period of one year.”

Directions Issued by The Court

In addition, the Court also directed the respondents to:

• Constitute Wild Life Advisory Boards at the State level within 2 months;
• Appoint Honorary Wildlife Wardens at the District level within 2 months;
• Proposals for de-notification of any area which is included in a sanctuary/ national park shall be referred to the Indian Board for Wildlife for its opinion, and only thereafter shall the proposal be placed for consideration before the Legislative Assembly, along with the opinion of the Indian Board for Wildlife;
• To effectively control the growing increase of poaching, the respondents will ensure that forest guards in the sanctuaries/ national parks are provided modern arms, communications facilities, viz., wireless sets and other necessary equipment.

Principles Applied by the Supreme Court

While agreeing with the constitutional framework put forward by the petitioners, the court further referred to the case of Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan.[13], where it was held that all efforts must be made to implement the spirit and provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; the provisions of which are salutary and are necessary to be implemented to maintain the ecological chain and balance.

Anthropocentric vs Ecocentric Concept

Further, the court discussed the Anthropocentric vs Ecocentric concept with respect to the protection of nature and wildlife, in light of sustainable development. It held that sustainable development clearly postulates an anthropocentric bias, least concerned with the rights of other species that live on this earth.

• Anthropocentrism: Always human-interest-focused thinking that non-human has only instrumental value to humans; in other words, humans take precedence and human responsibilities to non-humans are based on benefits to humans.
• Ecocentrism: Nature-centred, where humans are part of nature and non-humans have intrinsic value. Human interest does not take automatic precedence, and humans have obligations to non-humans independently of human interest.

Eco-centrism is, therefore, life-centred, nature-centred where nature includes both humans and non-humans. Our approach should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric, and we must apply the species’ best interest standard.

We must focus our attention on safeguarding the interests of species, as species have equal rights to exist on this earth. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve species becoming extinction. Conservation and protection of the environment is an inseparable part of the right to life.

Critique and Conclusion

The Judiciary has contributed to the development of forest law in India by widening the scope of locus standi and entertaining Public interest litigation in India, enunciating a web of doctrines and interpreting Constitutional law from environmental perspectives. It is true. The provisions of the Forest law were mere letters, but the judicial interpretation has given life and blood to them.

The myth created by the black letter law tradition that judges do not make law but merely find it or interpret it is not true in the field of environmental law in the Indian context. They do make laws. The Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India, are the best examples of it. The Supreme Court has tried to fill the gap between law and its implementation by creative interpretation of forest laws in India.

The judiciary has performed the role of law maker and established various committees and empowered them to enforce the provisions of forest laws. The thrust for economic development and the need for protection of forest resources have posed a challenge for a developing country like India.

In such situation the apex Court has tried to strike a balance by giving green signals to big projects and dams in the interest of the development of the county but at same time the efforts have been made by the court to take care of the environment impact assessment of these projects and protection of the rights of the forest dwellers and taking care of their rehabilitation and other issues.

References:

1. Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India, 2013 8 SCC 234.
2. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
3. Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912
4. Constitution of India, Article 48A
5. State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, 1988 4 SCC 655.
6. Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 1987 2 SCC 295.
7. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 1 SCC 395.
8. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997 1 SCC 388.
9. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996 5 SCC 647.
10. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, 2014 7 SCC 547.
11. Goa Foundation v. Union of India, 2014 6 SCC 590.
12. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 1997 2 SCC 267.
13. Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 10 SCC 604.