HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENT

PROTECTION IN INDIA

Submitted To: Submitted By:

ISHA BANSAL SADHIKA SHARMA
(Assistant Professor) B.A.LL.B.- 4TH SEM

Geeta Institute of Law

Session- 2021-2022
ABSTRACT
There is no dearth of legislations on environmental protection in India but their enforcement
has been far from satisfactory. There is need for the effective and efficient enforcement of the
Constitutional mandate and other environmental legislations. The creative role of judiciary
has been significant and laudable. Pursuant to the Constitutional provisions contained in
Articles 48A and 51A(h), many Public Interest Litigations have been instituted in the
Supreme Court of India against many industries for failing to provide adequate pollution
control and also against Pollution Control Boards to direct them to take appropriate measures
to ensure pollution control. For the purpose of efficient and effective enforcement of these
lays, it is necessary to set up an Adjucatory Body which should consist of legal as well as
technical experts. Caring for regulating and protecting the environment is essentially a desire
to see that national development should proceed along the rational sustainable laws. Key
Words: Water Pollution, Air Pollution, Environmental Protection, Sustainable Development,
Public Interest Litigation, Judiciary
INTRODUCTION
Today, the conservation, protection and improvement of human environment are major
issues all over the world. Human environment consists of both physical environment and
biological environment. Physical environment covers land, water and air. Biological
environment includes plants, animals and other organisms. Both physical and biological
environment are inter-dependent. Industrialisation, urbanisation, explosion of population,
over-exploitation of resources, disruption of natural ecological balances, destruction of a
multitude of animal and plant species for economic reasons are the factors which have
contributed to environmental deterioration.1One country's degradation of environment
degrades the global environment for all the countries.2 The problem of environmental
pollution has acquired international dimension and India is no exception to it. In the present
paper, an attempt has been made to briefly outline the Indian laws which are primarily and
more relevant to protect and improve the environment. The enforcement of these laws has
also been examined and evaluated.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
Stockholm Declaration of 1972 was perhaps the first major attempt to conserve and protect
the human environment at the international level. As a consequence of this Declaration, the
States were required to adopt legislative measures to protect and improve the environment.
Accordingly, Indian Parliament inserted two Articles, i.e.,, 48A and 51A in the Constitution
of India in 1976,3Article 48A of the Constitution rightly directs that the State shall endeavour
to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife of the country.
Similarly, clause (g) of Article 51A imposes a duty on every citizen of India, to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, river, and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures. The cumulative effect of Articles 48A and 51A (g) seems to
be that the 'State' as well as the 'citizens' both are now under constitutional obligation to
1
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Benga', AIR 1987 SC 1109
2
Armin Rosencranz, Shyam Divan and Martha L.Noble, Environmental Law and Policy in India (1991), p. 25
3
Inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
conserve, perceive, protect and improve the environment. Every generation owes a duty to all
succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best
possible way.4 The phrase ‘protect and improve’ appearing in both the Articles 48A and 51A
(g) seems to contemplate an affirmative government action to improve the quality of
environment and not just to preserve the environment in its degraded form. Apart from the
constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment, there are a plenty of
legislations5 on the subject but more relevant enactments for our purpose are the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; the National
Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and the National Environment Appellate Authority Act,
1997; the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Water
Act provides for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or
resorting of the wholesomeness of water. The Act prohibits any poisonous, noxious or
polluting matter from entering into any stream or well. The Act provides for the formation of
Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution
In the Ganga Water Pollution case6 , the owners of some tanneries near Kanpur were
discharging their effluents from their factories in Ganga without setting up primary treatment
plants. The Supreme Court held that the financial capacity of the tanneries should be
considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. The Court
directed to stop the running of these tanneries and also not to let out trade effluents from the
tanneries either directly or indirectly into the river Ganga without subjecting the trade
effluents to a permanent process by setting up primary treatment plants as approved by the
State Pollution Control Board.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 aims to provide levy and
collection of a cess on water consumed by persons carrying certain industries and local
authorities to augment the resources of the Central Board and the State Boards constituted for
the prevention and control of water pollution. The object is to realise money from those
whose activities lead to pollution and who must bear the expenses of the maintaining and
running of such Boards. The industries may obtain a rebate as to the extent of 25%7 if they set
up treatment plant of sewage or trade effluent
In Delhi, the public transport system including buses and taxies are operating on a single fuel
CNG mode on the directions given by the Supreme Court.8 Initially, there was a lot of
resistance from bus and taxi operators. But now they themselves realise that the use of CNG
is not only environment friendly but also economical.
JUDICIAL CONTRIBUTION The right of a person to pollution free environment is a part of
basic jurisprudence of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a
fundamental right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to
4
State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Store, AIR 1981 SC 711; see also Rural Litigation and Entitle Ji: at Kendra v. State
ofUttar Pordesh, AIR 1987 SC 359
5
E.g. Indian Forest Act, 1927; the Factories Act, 1948; the Atomic Energy Act, 1962; insecticide 1968.
6
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037. See also Bhavani River v. Sakthi Sugar Limited AIR 1998 SC
2059
7
Substituted for '70%', w.e.f. 26.1.1992
8
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 2963
life and personal liberty to include the right to wholesome environment.9The Court through
its various judgements10 has held that the mandate of right to life includes right to clean
environment, drinking-water and pollution-free atmosphere.
Taj Mahal Case
In Taj Mahal's case11, the Supreme Court issued directions that coal and coke based industries
in Taj Trapezium (TTZ) which were damaging Taj should either change over to natural gas
or to be relocated outside TTZ. Again the Supreme Court directed to protect the plants
planted around Taj by the Forest Department as under12
Pollution in Delhi In Almitra H.Patel v. Union of India13, the Supreme Court reiterated the
observations made in Wadehra's case14-Historic city of Delhi, the Capital of India, is one of
the most polluted cities in the world. The authorities, responsible for pollution control and
environment protection have not been able to provide clean and healthy environment
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
The aforesaid study leads us to the following conclusion and suggestions:
i) We have more than 200 Central and State legislations which deal with environmental
issues. More legislation means more difficulties in enforcement. There is a need to have a
comprehensive and an integrated law on environmental protection for meaningful
enforcement.
ii) It is not enough to enact the legislations. A positive attitude on the part of everyone in
society is essential for effective and efficient enforcement of these legislations.
iii) The powers vested to the Pollution Control Boards are not enough to prevent pollution.
The Boards do not have power to punish the violators but can launch prosecution against
them in the Courts which ultimately defeat the purpose and object of the Environmental Laws
due to long delays in deciding the cases. Thus, it is imperatively necessary to give more
powers to the Boards.
iv) The Environment Protection Laws have failed to bring about the desired results.
Consequently, for the purpose of efficient and effective enforcement of these laws, it is
necessary to set up the Environment Courts; with one Judge and two technical experts from
the field of Environmental Science and Ecology. These Courts should be allowed to adopt
summary proceedings for speedy disposal of the cases. To begin with we may have such
Courts at the State and National levels that may later be extended to district level on need-
based principle. In order to discourage prolonged litigation, the provisions should be confined
to single appeal.
v) There is a multiplicity of environment pollution control standards for the same type of
industries. However, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 now the power has been
conferred upon the Central Government for laying down the standards for the quality of air,
9
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun V. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 1037
10
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420; M.C. Mehta V. Union of India. AIR 2000 SC 1997
11
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734; see also M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1999 S.C. 3192
12
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (2001), 9 SCC 520
13
AIR 2000 SC 1256
14
Dr. B.L Wadehra v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2969
water and soil. It is hoped that this will ensure uniformity of standards through out the
country