EL – Case Laws

VII Semester – July 2024

1
 Fundamental Rights &
Environment Protection

2
• Sushila Saw Mills Vs State of Orissa, AIR (1995) 5 SCC 615
imposing total ban on saw mill business or operation within the prohibited area of reserved
or protected forest was not violative inter alia of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the
Constitution. It was taken as settled law that in the public interest, restriction under Article
19(6) may in certain cases include total prohibition.
• Abhilash Textile Vs Rajkot Municipal Corporation, AIR 1988 Guj. 67
the petitioners were discharging dirty water from the factory on public road and in public
drainage without purifying the same. The Court held that one cannot carry on the business
in the manner by which the business activity becomes a health hazard to the entire society.
• Kaushal Kishore vs. State of UP, 2023
fundamental rights can be enforced against companies
• Bombay Environmental Action Group Vs Pune Cantonment
Art.19(1)(a) – right to speech – right to information – people’s participation in the Movement
for the protection of the environment cannot be over-emphasised. it is wrong to think that
by trying to protect the environment, they are opposing various development projects –
right to inspect municipal permissions
• Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs Proprietors, Indian Express Newspaper- Bombay (P.) Ltd,
AIR 1989 SC 190
Supreme Court held that the people at large have a right to know in order to be able to take
part in a participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. 3
Article 21
• Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administration, Union Territory of Delhi, 1989 - Right to livelihood u/Art. 21
• Olga Tellis vs. Bombay municipal corporation, 1986 - Art.21 – displacement, eviction
• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
PIL against Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO) and the State of Bihar – pollution of the Bokaro River caused by
the discharge of slurry and waste from TISCO’s steel plant – harming the environment and adversely affecting the
health and livelihood of the people living nearby, thus violating their right to life under Art.21 of the Indian
Constitution – SC upheld the right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution includes the right to enjoy pollution- free
water and air for the full enjoyment of life - recognized the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right,
closely tied to the right to life and personal liberty.
• MK Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024
The case presented a dilemma between promoting solar power generation and protecting endangered species. The
Supreme Court had to balance these two important causes¹.
The Court directed the installation of bird diverters and mandated that all low voltage power lines in the GIB habitat
be laid underground. Existing power lines in priority areas were also to be converted to underground lines.
The judgment acknowledged India's commitments under international conventions like the Kyoto Protocol and the
Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy – The Court recognized the
right to a healthy environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as fundamental
rights under Art.21 – imposed restrictions on the setting up of new overhead transmission lines in a large area,
impacting solar power projects – reflected the Court's preference for the protection of endangered species over the
facilitation of solar power generation.
4
Rights of Indigenous People
& Environment Protection

5
• Banwasi Seva Ashram Vs State of U.P, 1987
NTPC plant in Adivasi land - other facilities to be provided – Right to Legal Aid – Right to Fair
Hearing – The Court emphasized that their possession and use of the land should be considered
before any eviction – Right to Livelihood – Recognizing the Adivasis' dependence on the land for
their livelihood, the Court underscored the need to balance environmental conservation with the
rights of indigenous people to sustain their way of life. – Right to Rehabilitation – The Court also
highlighted the necessity of proper rehabilitation for the Adivasis if they were to be displaced,
ensuring they were not left without means of subsistence.
• Fatehsang Gimba Vasava v. State of Gujarat (1987)
the petition was filed by economically disadvantaged adivasis in Gujarat who were denied their
forest rights by the State Government. The petitioners argued that they possessed certain rights in
reserved forests, including residence and the collection of forest produce, which were essential for
their hutment and livelihood.
However, forest officers contended that these items fell under the category of "minor forest
produce" as defined under Sec.2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and therefore required a transit
permit for collection from the forest areas.
The Court - the primary intent behind granting special privileges to the residents of forest villages
was to provide them with a means of livelihood. The Court further clarified that while the term
"forest produce" under Sec.2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, includes bamboo, it does not
extend to products made from bamboo, as such products, shaped by human labor, fall outside the
section's scope. The Court directed the State officials to restore the adivasis' rights, allowing them
access to bamboo, thereby enabling them to sustain their livelihood.
6
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 1996
Also known as Forests Case – to protect the forest lands in the Nilgiris from deforestation and illegal timber
activities - SC interpreted the term “forest” to include not just government-designated forests but also any area
that fits the dictionary definition of a forest - broad interpretation ensured that the Forest Conservation Act
applied to all forested areas, regardless of ownership or classification – emphasized on sustainable development,
compensatory afforestation, rigorous EIA, monitoring – encouraged use of PIL for environment protection
• The State of Telangana & Ors. vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs, 2024
Dispute over classification of land as forest land – principles discussed:
1. Ecocentrism: This principle emphasizes the intrinsic value of all living organisms and their natural environment,
regardless of their utility to human beings. The Court highlighted the need to protect forests for their own sake
and for the ecological balance they maintain.
2. Sustainable Development: The judgment underscored the importance of balancing developmental needs with
environmental protection. It stressed that development should not come at the cost of degrading natural
resources.
3. Intergenerational Equity: This principle involves the responsibility to preserve the environment for future
generations. The Court emphasized that current generations have a duty to ensure that natural resources are
available for future generations.
4. Public Trust Doctrine: The Court reiterated that the government holds natural resources in trust for the public
and must protect them from exploitation and degradation.
5. Precautionary Principle: This principle advocates for preventive action in the face of environmental harm. The
Court stressed the need for caution and preventive measures to protect forest land from potential threats.
7
Industrial Development &
Environment Protection

8
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
PIL under Art.32 - highlighting the severe pollution of the River Palar caused by untreated
effluents from tanneries in Tamil Nadu, affecting drinking water and agriculture – The Court
acknowledged the economic importance of the tanneries but stressed the need to protect
public health and the environment – directed the tanneries to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each
and awarded Rs.50,000 to environmental activist M.C. Mehta for his efforts – The judgment
also called for the establishment of Green Benches to expedite environmental cases in India.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 142
court ordered for complete ban on mining operation in Aravalli range falling in the State of
Haryana Dist., Faridabad and Gurgaon including Mewar area – Supreme Court affirmed that
environment and ecology are national assets – they are subject to intergenerational equity.
• M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath, 1996
“Pollution is a civil wrong by its very nature. It is a tort committed against the community as
a whole. A person who is guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages for the restoration of
the environment and ecology in addition to compensation as aforesaid. The person guilty of
causing pollution may also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a
deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner”.
9
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun Vs State of U.P, 1985
limestone mining in the Musseorie-Dehradun – upsetting ecological balance – The court
balanced environmental protection with the livelihood of those employed in the mining
sector by recommending rehabilitation and alternative employment opportunities for
affected workers.
Recognized the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution,
emphasized sustainable development, and directed that mining operations harmful to the
environment be stopped.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga River Pollution Case) (1997)
PIL filed under Art.32 – severe pollution in the River Ganga near Kanpur – petitioner sought
to prevent the State of Uttar Pradesh from allowing trade effluents into the river –
respondents argued that the tanneries lacked the resources to install treatment facilities – SC
dismissed this argument, stating that financial constraints could not justify non-compliance,
similar to how industries unable to pay minimum wages cannot operate – ordered the
closure of non-compliant tanneries until they installed pre-treatment facilities.

10
• Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railways Corporation (1992)
construction of railway line through the states of Maharashtra, Goa, and Karnataka, which had long been
demanded by locals for better economic access and transport – petition under Art.226 of the Constitution –
arguing that the project’s alignment lacked a thorough E.I.A. and would severely damage the ecosystem and
violate citizens' rights under Art.21 of the Constitution.
The court noted that while development projects often come with environmental drawbacks, they are also
crucial for public welfare – highlighted the need to balance public utility with environmental protection,
stating that such decisions should be made by experts in the field - dismissed the petition, emphasizing that
the overall benefit to the region from the project should be considered against the environmental concerns
raised.
• Narula Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India (1995)
industrial units challenged directives issued by [Link]. under Sec.5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 –
directives required these units to halt their production activities and take measures to ensure that their
wastewater met the standards set by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board – prohibited from resuming
operations without permission from [Link]. – The court affirmed that the State Board had the authority to
impose conditions on the industrial units in accordance with Sec.25 of the Water Act - directed the
petitioners to adhere to the State Government’s directives.

11
• Intellectuals Forum Vs State of A.P, AIR 2006 SC 1350
Duty of State to protect environment – public trust doctrine - merely asserting an intention for development will
not be enough to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a
principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental needs which the
respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appelants allege.
• UCC vs. UoI, 1988 – Bhopal Gas Tragedy case
This landmark case arose from the catastrophic gas leak at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, on the night of December 2-3, 1984. The leak of methyl isocyanate gas resulted in
thousands of deaths and injuries, making it one of the world's worst industrial disasters¹².
The Supreme Court of India reiterated the principles of strict liability and absolute liability - party can be held
liable for damages without the need to prove negligence - UCC was ordered to pay $470 million in compensation
to the victims – expanded the interpretation of Art.21 to include the right to a pollution-free environment - led
to the enactment of Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 to prevent
such incidents in the future.
• Sachidananda Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1987)
allocation of land by the Government of West Bengal to the Taj Group of Hotels for constructing a five-star hotel
near the Alipore Zoological Gardens in Kolkata. Concerns were raised about the potential ecological impact,
particularly on migratory birds and the zoo's environment – SC held that the government acted in good faith and
that the decision was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The court emphasized the importance of balancing
development with environmental protection.
12
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) (Oleum Gas Leakage case)
PIL under Art.32 – the Supreme Court established the rule of Absolute Liability, which is stricter than Strict Liability, in
response to an incident involving Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry. The industry was located in a densely
populated area of Delhi – oleum gas leaked from the sulfuric acid plant, resulting in the death of an advocate and
injuries to several others – The Court ultimately allowed Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry to resume operations,
recognizing the essential role of such industries for economic and social progress. However, it imposed several
conditions:
1. The management was required to deposit ₹20 lakhs in court as security for compensation to victims.
2. The industry had to implement all recommendations from expert committees and install necessary safety
equipment.
3. A green belt, 1 to 5 kilometers wide, had to be established around the plant.
• Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India (1998)
PIL seeking the enforcement of various environmental laws related to areas in the Alwar District of Rajasthan, now
known as the Sariska Tiger Park. The petitioners argued that the Government of Rajasthan had improperly issued
approximately 400 mining licenses in this protected zone, which would likely lead to ecological degradation. They
contended that such mining activities violated the Forest Conservation Act,1980 and other relevant environmental
statutes.
The Court directed the Central Government to invoke Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA, 1986),
and establish a Committee tasked with ensuring compliance with environmental laws. This Committee was to assess
the environmental and wildlife damage caused by mining and recommend appropriate remedial measures.
Additionally, the Court declared that no mining activities should take place in the designated protected area,
reinforcing the commitment to safeguarding the environment and wildlife of Sariska Tiger Park.
13
• Attakoya Thangal v. State of Kerala (1990)
environmental impact of quarrying activities in the Western Ghats region of Kerala - The Supreme Court
recognized the critical importance of protecting the environment, especially in ecologically sensitive areas
like the Western Ghats. acknowledged the adverse impact of quarrying on the local environment and
communities.
emphasized right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution - environmental degradation caused by the
quarrying activities threatened the local communities' health and economic well-being - The Court directed
the State of Kerala to take immediate and effective measures to regulate quarrying activities - implementing
proper EIA, and adopting measures to mitigate damage - suspending operations in certain areas until proper
environmental assessments and safeguards were put in place.
• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors (2000)
construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River – challenged due to its potential
environmental impact and the displacement of local communities - Petitioners argued that the dam would
displace thousands of people, affecting their livelihoods and violating their rights under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life - The court emphasized the need for proper
rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected communities - The Supreme Court permitted the construction
of the dam, emphasizing the importance of development while ensuring that the rights of the displaced
people were protected - The judgment highlighted the principle of sustainable development, ensuring that
economic growth does not come at the expense of human rights and environmental protection.
14
• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401
dealt with the environmental clearance for the development of a greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa –
SC found that the EIA process was flawed and did not adequately consider the environmental impacts - suspended
the environmental clearance granted for the airport project.
emphasized the importance of environmental governance within a rule of law paradigm - Paris Agreement and
India's Nationally Determined Contribution as crucial aspects of India's environmental rule of law – importance of
inclusion of local communities in decision-making process.
Later, on January 16, 2020, the Supreme Court lifted the suspension of the environmental clearance after the
project proponents provided additional environmental impact information and committed to making the airport a
"zero carbon airport operation".
• Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority vs. The Central Empowered Committee
(CEC), 2021
construction of a Bus Stand Complex at McLeod Ganj, Himachal Pradesh – The CEC found that part of the complex,
specifically a Hotel-cum-Restaurant, was built illegally on forest land without proper permissions under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980
Emphasised importance of environmental rule of law - all development projects must comply with existing
environmental laws and regulations – obtaining necessary permissions and clearances before commencing any
construction – authorities and developers must be held accountable for any violations – court upheld the penalties
and demolition orders issued by the NGT – reiterated the significance of protecting forest areas and ensuring that
any development in such regions does not harm the environment – illegal construction on forest land was deemed
a serious violation.

15
• Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2023)
limestone mining in East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya – faced opposition from environmental groups and
local communities due to concerns about deforestation, biodiversity loss, and the impact on local tribal lands –
SC allowed Lafarge to resume mining activities, but under stringent conditions aimed at minimizing
environmental impact - company was required to implement a comprehensive environmental management
plan, including afforestation and measures to protect biodiversity – regular monitoring of the environmental
impact by an independent body – compensate for the ecological damage caused by its operations, including
contributing to local community development and environmental conservation projects – Court emphasized the
need for transparency and periodic reporting on the company’s compliance with environmental norms.
• A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (AIR 1999 SC 812)
The case involved the establishment of a vegetable oil factory by the respondent in a village in Andhra Pradesh.
The site was near reservoirs providing drinking water to millions of people. The main issue was whether the
respondent's industry, classified as hazardous, could be allowed to operate near these reservoirs. The AP
Pollution Control Board had denied the NOC required for the establishment².
SC upheld the APPCB's decision to reject the NOC, emphasizing the importance of environmental protection and
the need to critically assess any potential risks to vital resources like water bodies - The judgment reinforced the
application of the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle.

16
• Sterlite Copper Plant Case, Tamil Nadu
The Sterlite Copper Plant, operated by Vedanta Limited in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, was one of the largest
copper smelting plants in India. Over the years, the plant faced numerous allegations of environmental
violations, including air and water pollution, which were said to have adversely affected the health of the local
population and the surrounding ecosystem.
In 2013, the Supreme Court allowed the plant to continue functioning. In 2018, widespread protests erupted in
Thoothukudi demanding the closure of the plant due to its severe environmental impact. The protests escalated,
resulting in violent clashes and police firing, which led to the death of 13 protesters. Following these events, the
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) ordered the closure of the plant. Vedanta challenged the closure
order in various courts, arguing that the shutdown was arbitrary and politically motivated.
In 2022, the Madras High Court upheld the closure of the Sterlite Copper plant in Thoothukudi, emphasizing the
importance of environmental protection and public health over economic benefits. The decision was rooted in
the plant's history of environmental violations and the adverse health impacts on the local population. Despite
the economic repercussions, including job losses and economic downturn in the region, the court maintained
that the right to a clean environment is paramount.
• Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2024 INSC 175)
SC court upheld the closure of Vedanta's Sterlite copper smelting plant in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, due to
repeated breaches of environmental norms. The Court ruled that the plant had consistently failed to comply with
environmental regulations and had caused significant harm to the environment and public health.

17
Urban Planning & Environment Protection
• T. Damodar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (1987)
Residents living near a park (recreational zone) filed a writ petition, arguing that constructing
a residential colony in a recreational zone violated their Right to Life under Article 21 of the
Constitution - court ruled that building residential houses on land reserved for a recreational
park would disrupt the environmental balance of the area – directed the removal of any such
constructions in recreational zones.
• V. Laxmipathy v. State of Karnataka (1994)
land use and environmental protection in urban areas – establishment of sawmills and wood-based
industries in a residential area was in violation of the zoning regulations stipulated by the city
planning authorities - The Court underscored that residential areas are meant for housing and should
be free from industrial pollution that could endanger the health and well-being of residents - The HC
directed that the sawmills and wood-based industries be relocated to appropriate industrial zones as
designated by the city’s master plan, ensuring that residential areas remain free from industrial
activities that cause pollution and noise.
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sushila Devi, 1999
fallen tree – negligence of State in not clearing dead and decaying trees – Duty of State to
maintain environment
18
• L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan (1988)
PIL against the State of Rajasthan and the Jaipur Municipal Corporation –highlighted the poor sanitation and
uncollected garbage in Jaipur, arguing that these conditions posed serious health hazards to the residents,
violating their fundamental right to life under Art.21 - petitioner alleged that the Jaipur Municipal Corporation
failed in its statutory duty to maintain cleanliness and proper waste management, causing environmental
pollution and public health risks.
The HC ruled that the right to life under Art.21 includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment - a
clean environment is integral to a person’s well-being and fundamental to the right to life – held – municipal
authorities have a legal obligation to ensure proper sanitation and waste management under their statutory
duties. It directed the Jaipur Municipal Corporation to fulfill these duties promptly.
• Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand (AIR 1980 SC 1622)
Residents of Ratlam city in MP faced severe sanitation issues due to open drains and lack of public toilets,
leading to health hazards. They filed a complaint under Section 133 of CrPC to compel the municipality to
address these issues. The Supreme Court, led by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, upheld the Magistrate’s order
directing the municipality to construct proper drainage and sanitation facilities. The Court emphasized that
financial inability cannot be an excuse for failing to perform statutory duties. This case is significant for
establishing the responsibility of municipal bodies to ensure basic public health and sanitation, reinforcing the
doctrine of public nuisance under the CrPC

19
Inter-State Water Disputes &
Environment Protection

20
 Karnataka v. Tamil Nadu (Cauvery Water Dispute) (2023)
• The Cauvery Water Dispute is one of India's longest-running inter-state water conflicts, involving the sharing of
the waters of the Cauvery River between the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the Union Territory
of Puducherry. The primary contention has been between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, with both states relying
heavily on the river for irrigation, drinking water, and industrial use.
• The dispute dates back to agreements made during the British era in 1892 and 1924, which Tamil Nadu has
historically favored, while Karnataka has sought a revised allocation citing changes in water demand and usage
patterns over the decades.
• In 2018, the SC established the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to oversee the
implementation of its water-sharing directives, aiming to provide a long-term solution for equitable
distribution.
• In 2023, Karnataka experienced deficient rainfall, leading to a reduced water flow in its reservoirs. Karnataka
argued that it could not release the agreed-upon quantity of water to Tamil Nadu without jeopardizing its own
drinking water needs.
• Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, contended that Karnataka was not complying with the water-sharing formula,
resulting in inadequate water for its farmers during the crucial agricultural season.
• The SC upheld the water-sharing formula established in its 2018 judgment but took into consideration the
prevailing drought conditions in Karnataka. The Court emphasized cooperation between the states to manage
the shortfall equitably.
• The decision sought to address immediate concerns while maintaining the broader framework of water-
sharing established by the Supreme Court. It reinforced the authority of the CWMA and underscored the need
for cooperation and sustainable management of shared water resources.
21
Article 262 Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to
waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys - exclude such disputes from the
jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court - Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956 - Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was
constituted to adjudicate the dispute.
Water is a state subject under Entry 17 of the State List, but inter-state rivers
fall under Entry 56 of the Union List, allowing the central government to
regulate and develop these waters - need for cooperation between states and
the central government to manage shared resources effectively – IWRM –
community participation – equitable sharing of ware resources – consent
from lower riparian states for major projects .
Articles 14, 21 – Ensuring adequate water supply is crucial for agriculture,
drinking water, and overall well-being of the population – Article 48A state to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wildlife of the country. Sustainable management of river waters is essential
for environmental protection.
22
• Environment Impact Assessment
• Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati (2020)
post-facto environmental clearances are impermissible under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 –
environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This would be contrary to both the
precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development – Court took a strict stance to uphold the sanctity of
the EIA Notification and ensure compliance with statutory requirements
• Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO (2022)
Company operating 2 manufacturing units in Haryana applied for environmental clearance (EC) after the units were already
operational – NGO filed a petition in the NGT seeking the closure of the units for operating without prior EC.
The Supreme Court upheld the concept of ex-post facto environmental clearance, allowing the units to continue operating while
their applications for EC were being processed – directed relevant authorities to decide on EC applications w/n 1month
Distinguished from decision in Alembic case – Unlike cases where post-facto clearance was sought for deliberate non-
compliance, here, the company demonstrated good faith by seeking regularization of past procedural lapses - The Court
stressed balancing sustainable development and compliance with environmental norms, rather than penalizing entities for
procedural lapses that could be remedied. This decision reflects a context-specific flexibility where procedural lapses were seen
as remediable and not as willful disregard for the law.
• Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India (2023)
industrial entities were operating without valid environmental clearances as mandated by the EIA Notification, 2006 – they later
sought post-facto environmental clearance to regularize their activities – SC took a strict stance and held that Post-Facto
Clearances Are Not a Right – Granting such clearances undermines the objectives of the precautionary principle and sustainable
development – post-facto clearances should not become a norm or an excuse for industries to bypass legal requirements –
Industries violating environmental norms may face penalties and be required to undertake rectification measures, but such
actions cannot replace the need for prior clearance – importance of public participation
This judgment aligns more closely with the strict approach taken in Alembic Pharmaceuticals than the relatively flexible stance
23
in Pahwa Plastics, indicating the Court's preference for stringent compliance with environmental laws.
• Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India (2018)
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 – Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (FEBS)– Uttarakhand High Court – while
the Act differentiates between Indian and foreign entities regarding the requirement of prior approval (with
foreign entities needing prior approval from the NBA and Indian entities required to provide prior intimation to
SBBs), it does not exempt Indian entities from FEBS obligations – emphasized on objectives of the Act and
India's international commitments under Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol –
held that SBBs possess the authority to demand FEBS from Indian entities
• In Re: Noise Pollution – Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeakers and High Volume
Producing Sound Systems (2005, SC)
right to a pollution-free environment, including freedom from noise pollution, is a fundamental right u/Art.21
noise beyond permissible limits constitutes a public nuisance under the law – adverse effects of noise pollution
on children, the elderly, and the sick – strict regulation of use of loudspeakers, amplifiers, and firecrackers
religious and cultural freedoms cannot override fundamental rights of others to live in a peaceful environment –
Reasonable restrictions on noise pollution necessary for the larger public interest.
Court directed the authorities to strictly enforce the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000,
framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
mandated specific noise level limits for different zones (residential, industrial, commercial, and silence zones) –
banned the use of loudspeakers and high-decibel sound systems between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, except in
cases of public emergencies or special permissions - instructed authorities to raise public awareness about
harmful effects of noise pollution
24
• Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010)
strict implementation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – greater public awareness and involvement in wildlife
conservation efforts, as well as improved vigilance by enforcement agencies – imposed stringent penalties, sending a
strong message against wildlife crimes – catalyzed efforts to improve wildlife protection laws and enforcement
mechanisms, including greater coordination among agencies like the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau.
Sansar Chand was involved in the illegal trade of wildlife products, including poaching and trading skins and body parts of
endangered species like tigers and leopards – court held that there is no absolute rule that extra-judicial confessions can
never be the basis of a conviction. However, such confessions should be corroborated by other material facts – court
upheld the conviction of Sansar Chand, emphasizing the need for stringent enforcement of wildlife protection laws to
preserve biodiversity and maintain ecological balance
• Ajay Dubey v. National Tiger Conservation Authority (2012)
Core and Buffer Zones – clarified the distinction between "core" zones (critical tiger habitats that need absolute
protection) and "buffer" zones (peripheral areas where conservation and sustainable human activity coexist) – mandated
the identification, demarcation, and notification of both zones for all tiger reserves in India – restrictions on non-forestry
activities in the core zones to prevent habitat destruction.
• Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India & Others (2013, SC)
Creation of additional habitat for conservation of Asiatic lions – Court emphasized the Public Trust Doctrine – natural
resources, including wildlife, are held by the state in trust for benefit of public – reaffirmed principle of sustainable
development - economic progress cannot compromise the rights of future generations to a healthy environment.
The Court directed the Union and State Governments to take proactive measures to protect wildlife and implement the
Wildlife (Protection) Act effectively - It also urged the creation of awareness programs and the involvement of local
communities in conservation efforts – Effective Implementation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Court mandated
periodic monitoring and reporting of conservation efforts – importance of protecting biodiversity. 25
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UoI (2002)
established the Central Empowered Committee, an independent body to monitor compliance with the Court’s
orders on forest and environmental matters. The CEC was tasked with investigating complaints related to
violations of forest laws and overseeing the implementation of forest-related judgments.
mandated that for any approved diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, there should be
compensatory afforestation, meaning trees must be planted on an equivalent or larger area of non-forest land
– ordered the establishment of a Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) to manage funds collected for
afforestation efforts.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UoI (2022)
Adherence to principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement – Precautionary Principle
essential feature of the principle of Sustainable Development – harm can be prevented even on a reasonable
suspicion – In case of doubt, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest
SC revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for
doubling of existing railway line from Karnataka to Goa – Stressed on EIA of the project – especially in
protected area and wildlife sanctuary taking into account the impact on the habitat, species, climate,
temperature etc. caused due to felling of trees (not only for the laying of railway tracks but also for the
secondary works such as setting up machinery, disposal of waste), movement of trains, human-wildlife
interactions

26