This article is written by Divyanshi Gupta of 2nd Semester of Lloyd School of Law, Greater Noida
Abstract
In India, Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a thriving tool of environmental protection. In environmental litigation, the persons who are influenced may be anonymous or a dispersed herd of individuals, therefore establishing an infringement of a person’s legal right would be difficult. Prior to the 1980s, the locus standi in writ jurisdictions only involved petitions from individuals who had endured a breach of their guarded legal right or interest or were likely to endure such breach; thus, no other person was authorised to represent an indignant participant; such a person would not acquire the locus standi to initiate a petition. However, the advent of Public Interest Litigation through the findings of the Committee on Legal Aid, presided over by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, heralds a new development in an environment-aligned jurisprudence.
The simplified procedural rules under PIL may give rise to cases in which the plaintiff seeks to implement the constitutional or legitimate rights of those individuals or societies who, due to poverty, dysfunction, or an ethically, culturally, or economically disadvantageous position, find it difficult to petition the appellate courts for relief. Thus, PIL is aimed as the prudent arm of legal movement and is a calm “entry to justice” for the restoration of the violated human rights of the criticsed groups in society.
Keywords
Public Interest Litigation, Environment laws, Environment protection
Introduction
PIL stands for Public Interest Litigation, and as the name implies, cases in this category are filed for the benefit of society as a whole, i.e. the public interest. The notion of PIL was introduced in India in 1979, when the court considered the rights of under-trial inmates and their inhumane conditions in the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. Union of India. Justice P.N. Bhagwati played a significant role in inventing the notion of PIL, and the people were given a powerful weapon in the event of a breach of a public duty that affects the public at large.
Public Interest Litigation[1]
The word “PIL” first appeared in the United States in the 1970s. Various movements in that country contributed to public awareness in the nineteenth century. Interest law is a subset of the legal aid movement. In 1876, the first legal assistance office was created in New York. The PIL movement began to receive financial backing from the Office of Economic Opportunity in the 1960s.
This motivated lawyers and public-spirited individuals to take up cases of the underprivileged and fight against numerous issues such as environmental hazards, public health hazards, exploitation of vulnerable masses, consumer exploitation, and unfairness to the weaker parts. PIL developed a name for itself in England during Lord Denning’s tenure in the 1970s.
The process of social action and social reform through legal action it is one of the most important processes which is known as public interest litigation. When the PIL was not introduced, justice was a remote reality for illiterate people. This is mostly due to three key challenges: (1) a lack of awareness among the general public; (2) a lack of assertiveness due to their low socioeconomic standing; and (3) a lack of an effective machinery to provide them with legal aid. Only when the impoverished realise that the harm done to them is a legal wrong and that there is a legal remedy accessible to them will they seek legal redress. Even if they are aware of their legal rights, the impoverished lack the resources and motivation to engage in costly litigation. And where a huge number of persons are victims of a shared injustice or exploitation, it is not possible for each of them to file separate petitions and seek individual remedies. These are some of the key impediments that the poor confront in their quest of justice.
A legal action filed in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community has a monetary or other interest that affects their legal rights or responsibilities is referred to as public interest litigation. As a result, a PIL is a process in which an individual or group seeks relief in the public interest rather than for its own. PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement that aims to bring justice to the masses
of the impoverished. It is a scheme to bring justice to individuals who cannot afford to go to court on their own. It was developed to help a group of people who were being denied their constitutional and legal rights because they couldn’t get to the courts due to socioeconomic barriers.
What are Environmental laws[2]?
Environmental law, principles, rules, directives, and regulations adopted and enforced by local, national, or international authorities to govern how humans interact with the natural environment. The vast field encompasses a wide range of topics in a variety of legal contexts, including state bottle-return laws in the United States, regulatory standards for emissions from coal-fired power plants in Germany, initiatives in China to build a “Green Great Wall”—a shelter belt of trees—to protect Beijing from sandstorms, and international treaties to protect biological diversity and the ozone layer. Environmental law evolved from a minor addition to the law of public health laws in the late twentieth century to an almost widely recognised autonomous field protecting both human health and nonhuman nature.
There are several levels of environmental law, and international declarations, conventions, and treaties only make up a portion of it. The majority of environmental legislation is statutory—that is, it is enacted by legislative bodies—and regulatory—that is, it is created by government agencies tasked with environmental protection.
Role of PIL in Environment Protection
Under the following conditions, a PIL on environmental damage may be filed:
- Causing Environmental Pollution in any manner that may endanger the public.
- By disrespecting the poor’s basic human rights, they are violated. For example, if a farmer’s farming land was taken away and he was not properly compensated for it.
- Municipal corporations or panchayats failing to perform their duties, such as failing to maintain local water and sanitation services.
- If there is a contradiction between religious rights and environmental rights, an environmental issue will occur as a result. For example, the use of loudspeakers in temples or mosques causes noise pollution.
- PILs can be brought against both public and private entities that are breaking environmental laws or creating environmental damage. PIL is frequently used to address environmental concerns such as pollution control, natural resource conservation, and sustainable development.
- PIL promotes transparency and accountability in governance by holding public officials accountable for their environmental activities or inactions. PIL in environmental law has also aided in raising public awareness of environmental challenges and citizens’ rights. It has given citizens the ability to take action against environmental abuses and seek restitution from the courts.
Recent judgements
The use of PIL has increased over time, and environmental awareness has greatly increased the number of PILs submitted each year. Some of the landmark cases in which PIL was filed include:
- Union of India and 11 others vs Vanashakti and 4 others (2019)
In this case, a PIL was brought in the Bombay High Court to safeguard the remaining Aarey trees in Mumbai, which were to be cut down for development purposes. Many environmentalist and social activists challenged the government’s orders in court, but the court dismissed their arguments based on the facts and circumstances of the cases.
- Kalia Sethi and others vs. State of Odisha and others (2017)
The role of the National Green Tribunal in matters involving environmental issues was discussed in this case. The High Court of Odisha ruled that the National Green Tribunal was established to oversee environmental laws and ensure that if there is a violation, it can take cognizance of the offence.
Judgement on environment protection.
- Ratlam Municipal Council v. Shri Vardhichand & Others; Supreme Court of India
Ratlam is a town in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. Some municipality residents filed a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stating that the municipality is not installing suitable sewers, that there is stench and stink created by the exertion of surrounding slum-dwellers, and that there was nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district directed the municipality to draught a competent development plan within six months after the complaint made by Ratlam city residents (approved by the High Court). Following that, the municipality filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India, claiming that it lacked the necessary financial support and funds to comply with the sub divisional magistrate of Ratlam city’s directive. Respondents claimed that the Ratlam City Municipality had failed to meet its obligations under the sub divisional magistrate to protect public health, including failing to prevent pollution and other dangerous waste from entering their residences. Respondents were concerned about pollution generated by runoff from a nearby alcohol production, which resulted in malaria. The Supreme Court directed the Ratlam Municipal Council to quickly implement an order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam City to protect the region from pollution generated by an alcohol plant leaking into the residents’ neighbouring areas. The Supreme Court also ordered the municipal to take the necessary steps to fulfil their obligation, including providing an adequate number of public laterals for men and women separately, as well as providing water supply and scavenging service in the morning and evening to ensure proper sanitation. The court further mandated that these duties be met within six months of the court’s order. The situation was caused by private polluters and poor municipal development, and the Supreme Court ruled that a pollution-free environment is an essential component of the right to life under Article 21. The Court further held that if the municipality feels the need for resources, it will raise its demand from the State Government through elitist projects and request loans from the State Government from the public health savings account to fulfil the resource requirement for the implementation of the Court’s order.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (Gas Leak In Shriram Factory); Supreme Court of India.
In 1984, there was a leakage of hazardous gas (methyl isocyanate) from Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (Gas Leak In Shriram Factory); Supreme Court of India. This accident was dubbed the “World’s Worst Industrial Disaster” because it took the lives of 2260 individuals and injured thousands more in a variety of ways. On December 1985, when the case was before the Supreme Court, another gas tragedy occurred at Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries (owned by Delhi Textile Mills Ltd.). One advocate was killed, and numerous others were injured. Supreme Court Justice MC Mehta filed a “public interest litigation” petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Keeping in mind the one-year-old massive gas disaster of Bhopal, the Supreme Court, through P.N. Bhagwati, C.J., developed a new rule, “Absolute Liability,” in preference to the 1868 rule of Strict Liability.
- Subhash Kumar v. Bihar State & Others; Supreme Court of India
Subhash Kumar filed the case through Public Interest Litigation to prevent pollution of the water of the river Bokaro caused by the discharge of sludge/slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner claimed that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1978 was passed by Parliament in order to keep water clean and prevent pollution. The State Pollution Control Board neglected to take action against the Company and allowed water pollution, and instead of taking action, the State of Bihar is providing a lease on the payment of royalty for slurry collection to various parties. The right to a pollution-free environment was integrated under the heading of the right to life, and all Indian Territory courts were required to uphold it. Article 21 declared public health and ecology to be priority, and the Supreme Court ordered the formation of a green bench. The Board has granted the Tata Iron & Steel Co. permission to discharge effluents from their outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act of 1974. Before approving the discharge of effluents into the Bokaro River, the Board conducted an analysis and monitoring to ensure that the effluents created did not pollute the river. The facts and pleadings on behalf of the Respondent made it clear that there was no good reason to accept Petitioner’s contentions that the water of the Bokaro River was polluted by the discharge of slurry/sludge from the respondent Company; on the other hand, the bench found that the State Pollution Control Board took effective steps to control pollution. As a result, the petition was denied.
Conclusion
The courts have utilized public interest litigation as an effective tool in dealing with matters involving environmental issues. The courts must ensure that the use of PIL for private purposes is not permitted because it contradicts the concept’s core purpose. The most significant feature of PILs is that they serve the general public.
According to Article-51(g) of the Indian Constitution, it is also the obligation of every citizen to care for the environment and have compassion for living creatures. When there is a violation of duty, PIL under Articles 32 and 226 must be invoked.
[1] ‘Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Subcontinent: Current Dimensions,’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly, January 1991
[2] environmental law, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 27 June 2023, https://www.britannica.comhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/environmental-law, July 08,2023
