Landmark Environmental Judgments in India: Part 1

-

 Landmark Environmental Judgments in India: Part 1

Author: Chandan Sha


Introduction

Environmental law in India has been greatly shaped through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), Supreme Court interventions, and a judicially evolved interpretation of fundamental rights under Article 21. This post summarizes landmark environmental judgments where the judiciary took active steps to balance development and environmental protection.


1. M.C. Mehta v. Union Carbide Corporation

The infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy in December 1984 saw a massive leak of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas from the Union Carbide India Limited (a subsidiary of the U.S.-based UCC). This disaster caused over 2,200 deaths and left more than 600,000 individuals seriously affected.

Initially, the Indian Government filed a suit in the U.S. District Court, New York, which was dismissed on the ground of forum non-conveniens. Subsequently, M.C. Mehta filed a case in India claiming $3.3 billion in damages. The District Court awarded $270 million as interim compensation. UCC appealed, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced it to $250 million.

Both parties moved the Supreme Court, which settled the matter by ordering UCC to pay $470 million as full and final compensation. The Court also quashed all civil and criminal proceedings against UCC. This case laid the foundation for the principle of absolute liability in Indian environmental jurisprudence.[1]


2. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal

The case involved a challenge to constructing a Taj hotel on a part of Alipore Zoo land in Kolkata. Petitioners alleged that principles of natural justice were not followed. The Supreme Court observed that environmental concerns must be considered by the judiciary in policy matters. However, since the hotel design preserved ecological sensitivity, construction was permitted.[2]


3. Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India

The petition highlighted illegal mining activities in Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan. The Court directed the Centre to form a committee under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, to assess environmental damage and stop mining in protected zones.[3]


4. Pradeep Krishnen v. Union of India

This PIL challenged the collection of tendu leaves from national parks and sanctuaries in Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court emphasized Article 48A and 51A(g), underlining that tribal entry into forests must follow due procedure under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. However, no blanket ban on entry was justified unless proven ecologically harmful.[4]


5. Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v. Union of India

Petitioners contested the 1991 Amendment banning ivory trade, including items made from extinct mammoth ivory. The Court upheld the ban, ruling that trade must yield to ecological and conservation goals. The prohibition was deemed reasonable under Article 19(1)(g), and no one has a fundamental right to trade in ivory.[5]


6. Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India

The Court reaffirmed its earlier position, holding that possession of ivory with a valid certificate is allowed, but its trade is banned. This was held as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g).[6]


7. Animal and Environmental Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India

The case challenged the issuance of 305 fishing licenses in Pench National Park. The Court imposed strict conditions: permit holders must carry photo IDs, permits cannot be transferred, entry logs must be maintained, and no fires allowed. This was aimed at minimizing ecological disruption.[7]


8. Centre for Environmental Law WWF-I v. Union of India

In this suo motu case, the Court directed 17 states to comply with Section 33-A and Section 34 of the Wildlife Protection Act, mandating livestock immunization and registration of arms holders in forest zones.[8]


9. Fatehsang Gimba Vasava v. State of Gujarat

The petitioners, tribal residents of forest areas, were denied rights to collect minor forest produce. The Court clarified that bamboo is a forest produce, but not its processed products. It directed state officials to restore tribal rights over forest resources for livelihood purposes.[9]


10. Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. Union of India

As India’s first environmental PIL, the case addressed illegal limestone mining in Doon Valley. The Court stopped mining activities based on Bhargava Committee recommendations, highlighting Article 51A(g) — the duty of citizens to protect the environment.[10]


11. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar

The petition alleged that companies were polluting the Bokaro River. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the PIL, noting it was filed for personal gain. It held that Article 32 should not be misused under the guise of environmental concern.[11]


12. T. Damodar Rao v. Special Officer, MCH

LIC’s residential development on land reserved for recreation was challenged. The Court upheld the environmental aspect of Article 21, directing the demolition of constructions violating zoning norms and endangering the ecological balance.[12]

Conclusion

These cases demonstrate how Indian courts have gone beyond traditional legal frameworks to integrate environmental protection into constitutional rights. With evolving jurisprudence, the Indian judiciary has firmly recognized the environment as integral to the right to life.


Endnotes

[1]: M.C. Mehta v. Union Carbide Corp., AIR 1987 SC 1086.
[2]: Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109.
[3]: Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 514.
[4]: Pradeep Krishnan v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 54.
[5]: Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Assn. v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3125.
[6]: Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 589.
[7]: Animal and Environmental Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1071.
[8]: Centre for Environmental Law WWF-I v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1073.
[9]: Fatehsang Gimba Vasava v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 252.
[10]: Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 652.
[11]: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
[12]: T. Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171.


🔖 Blog by Chandan Sha | For more legal insights, stay tuned to Study on Law Hills.


🔖 About Study on Law Hills

By Chandan Sha
One-stop blog for law notes, moot memorials & legal updates

Study on Law Hills is a legal blog that simplifies Indian law for students and professionals. From Constitution to Criminal Law, it offers:

  • 📚 Law notes for exams
  • ⚖️ Moot court memorials (Petitioner & Respondent)
  • 🧾 Case commentaries & updates
  • 📲 Legal reels & lectures via Instagram & YouTube

🔗 Blog: studyonlawhills.blogspot.com
📸 Instagram: @slawh2023
📧 Email: csstarmoon1000@gmail.com
🔗 LinkedIn: Chandan Sha






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Analyzing the Role of Community Participation in Water Conservation and Pollution Control in Rural West Bengal: A Case Study of the Darjeeling District

-
Image
  Topic: Analyzing the Role of Community Participation in Water Conservation and Pollution Control in Rural West Bengal: A Case Study of the Darjeeling District  Author ~ Chandan sha   I. INTRODUCTION Water is a crucial natural resource, especially in ecologically sensitive areas like the Darjeeling district of West Bengal. The increasing challenges of water pollution, depletion of clean water sources, and climate change have exacerbated the need for sustainable water management. Rural areas, where government infrastructure is often limited, rely significantly on local communities for maintaining water quality and ensuring sustainable usage. This research explores the impact of community involvement in water conservation and pollution control efforts in Darjeeling. Through a blend of doctrinal and empirical analysis, this study focuses on legal provisions, local initiatives, and administrative participation to understand the current status and scope of improvement. The ac...
Read more

“Law in My Mind, Justice in My Hand"

-
“ Law in My Mind, Justice in My Hand” In Labour Law, I see the fight, For equal pay and worker’s right. No child at work, no unjust strain, The law steps in to stop the pain. The Constitution, bold and grand, Gives rights to all across the land. From speech to vote, from faith to life, It calms the storms, it ends the strife. Environment Law, a growing plea, To save the sky, the land, the sea. No trees to cut, no waste to spill, Protect the Earth—we always will. A student now, I read and write, To stand for truth, to stand for right. In every case and every clause, I walk the path of noble laws. AUTHOR ~ CHANDAN SHA BBA LLB  🔖  Blog by Chandan Sha  | For more legal insights, stay tuned to  Study on Law Hills .
Read more

Public Trust Doctrine: Protecting Natural Resources for All

-
Image
Public Trust Doctrine: Protecting Natural Resources for All Author: Chandan Sha  Introduction The Public Trust Doctrine is a legal principle that says certain natural resources like air, water, forests, and seas are so important to all of us that the government must protect them for the benefit of the public. These resources are not owned by anyone privately but are held by the State in trust for future generations . This principle ensures that natural resources are not over-exploited or sold off for private profits at the cost of public interest. Origin of the Doctrine The doctrine started in Roman law , where it was said that things like air, sea, and running water are common to all mankind. It was further developed in English common law and adopted in many countries, including India. In India, the doctrine became a part of environmental jurisprudence through a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court in the 1990s. Article 48A added to Constitution of India through ...
Read more