Introduction to Environmental Laws in India:

The concept of Environment protection has deep cultural roots with the human civilization as it is an age-old idea that has impacted human society over the course of evolution. Thus, it naturally becomes more of a social obligation upon an individual as is provided as a fundamental duty in the Constitution of India. As the environment is dynamic, thus, the laws so associated are always evolving.
However, post-Industrial revolution era, humans have witnessed paced degradation of the environment. Of course, because of their own relentless efforts to get most of the natural resources. In India, post-Independence, the need for stringent environmental laws was felt.

Environment and Constitution of India:
The Constitution of India gives a fundamental priority to the concept of Environment Protection. The constitution of India has adopted more of an obligatory approach towards environment protection, rather than a punitive one, thus, affording right to healthy environment to all individuals. Though, ‘Environment’, as a term, is nowhere defined in the Constitution, many relevant provisions are inserted which gives us the environmental perspective to the Constitution. Following are the relevant excerpts of the Indian Constitution dealing with Environment Protection:

a) Article 48(A): The Directive Principle of State Policy:-

Vide the 42 nd amendment to the constitution, Article 48 A was inserted in the constitution of India. Article 48 A is a directive for environment protection towards the state. Article 48 A lays down as under:

““the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”

The provision is a constitutional mandate upon the state to improve the environment conditions. It emphasizes on the duty of the state in environmental protection via legislations and awareness.

b) Article 51(A): Fundamental Duties:-

Fundamental duties are provided in part IV of the constitution of India. Fundamental duties were inserted vide 42 nd amendment to the constitution. They are a set of rules that are imposed  upon the citizens as a social obligation of an individual towards the society at large.
Article 51(A) reads as under:

“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.“

In Kinkari Devi vs State, Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that it is duty of both, the state as well as the citizens not only to preserve the environment, but also to improve it.

c) Article 21 – Right to Live:

“Article 21- Right to Live- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”

As held in Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors. (1991) by the Apex Court, Tight to a healthy and pollution free environment is a fundamental right and is covered within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the petitioner along with the other citizens wrote to the supreme court expressing their views against the progressive mining which denuded the Mussoorie hills of trees and forests and soil erosion. It was held that the limestone quarries be closed because it was infringing the right to life and personal liberty. Quarrying operations lead to ecological degradation and air and water pollution, which affected the lives of the people to a great extent.

d) Article 47:-

“It is the duty of the state, to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health, the state shall endeavor to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”

Major Environmental Legislations:

1. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
2. The Prevention of Air and Water Pollution, 1974, 1981 (The Central Pollution Control Board) (CPCB) was constituted under this act.
3. The Air Prevention and Control of Pollution, 1981.
4. The Atomic Energy Act. 1982.
5. The Environmental Protection Act, 1986. (It came into force soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy) : The Act is an ”umbrella” legislation designed to provide a framework for Central Government co-ordination of the activities of various central and state authorities established under previous laws, such as the Water Act and Air Act. This Act is the first Act dealing with the Human environment as a composite whole and it is a comprehensive legislation on this point and also dealing with air, water, and noise pollution as also regulating the treatment of hazards materials.
6. The Environmental Conservation Act. 1989.
7. The National Environmental Tribunal, 1995.
8. National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
9. National Environment Management Act (NEMA), 1998
10. Handling and Management of Hazardous Waste Rule in 1989.
11. The Public Liability Insurance Act (Rules and Amendment), 1992.
12. The Biomedical Waste Management and Handling Rules, 1998.
13. The Environment (Siting for Industrial Projects) Rules, 1999.
14. The Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.
15. The Ozone Depleting Substance (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
16. The Biological Diversity Act 2002.
17. The National green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Regulatory authorities
The key regulatory authorities are the:

• Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
• CPCB.
• SPCBs.
• District Level Authorities (that is, municipal corporations)

Penalties
The Act has acute penalty provisions. Any person who fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of the Act. or the rules, orders, or directions issued under the Act shall be punished, for each failure or contravention, with a prison term of up to five years or a fine of up to Rs. l lakh, or both. The Act imposes an additional fine of up to Rs. 5,000 for every day of continuing violation. If a failure or contravention occurs for more than one year after the date of conviction, on offender may be punished with a prison term which may extend to seven years.

In regards to following international environment laws, In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the supreme court held that it is essential to incorporate the international customary laws in the municipal laws, provided they are not contrary to them. It is an accepted principle of law. Thus, it was considered essential to follow international laws by the domestic courts of law.

While dealing with the case of  Hamid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the state was negligent to supply water from the handpumps, citizens faced immense harm, which affected their health massively following which it was held that this was a gross negligence on the part of the state, it was held that the state failed to perform its basic duty. In L.K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, the municipality of Jaipur was being negligent in carrying on its basic duty of maintaining the hygiene of the state. This caused acute sanitation problem thereby leading to the to have hazardous effects on the lives of the people of the state. Mr Koolwal along with other residents moved an application under article 226 of the Indian constitution before the high court highlighting the gross negligence of the municipality.

While construing the true scope of Article 51-A  in this case the court explained that this article is not only a duty but is aright created in favour of the citizens to have the locus standing to move to the court to have a check on the conduct of the state activities, whether the authorities are performing their duties or not in accordance with the fundamental law of the land. The right to move to the court is granted to citizens for the proper enforcement of the state’s duties and of their relevant departments, local bodies etc. Being negligent in maintaining hygiene and sanitation standards slowly affects the lives of living beings and poisons the environment at large. This infringes the fundamental right of life of the citizen as provided under article 21, which also extends to have a decent standard of living and a clean and safe environment and thus, citizens protecting their fundamental right to life from being infringed is justified. Thus, the court directed the municipality to remove the dirt and all the filthy material which was posing a great threat to the lives and health of the people.

In another case of Goa Foundation v. the State of Goa, the petitioner was a society registered under the rules relating to registration of societies and its members were the citizens of India who had a fundamental duty to protect and improve the environment, lakes, forests, rivers  and have compassion for living creatures as laid down under article 51-A . The question of whether the society had locus standi to move to the court or not was raised before the court. The answer to this question was given in a very affirmative manner by the court and was held that the society had the same fundamental duty. Petitioner was held to have a locus standi to move to the court to not only prevent degradation of our ecology but also form and implement provisions for the purpose of rehabilitating the ecology thereby maintaining ecological balance.

Public interest litigation was filed before the high court by five persons, who were residents of a specific area, in the case of Sitaram Champaran V. State of Bihar to seek the directions of the court for the closure of the tyre retreading plant, in the interest of public health. This plant was situated in the residential area and was emitting carbon dioxide along with other obnoxious gases causing harm to the environment. The respondents were directed to wind up the plant in the interest of environmental protection and were considered a fundamental duty under Article 51-A.

In  Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India , it was held that the duty of the state is to take adequate and effective steps for the enforcement and protection of Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21, 48-A and 51-A(g).  In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, due to stone crushing activities in and around Delhi was causing a huge problem of pollution in the environment. The court was conscious of the inevitable consequences and the ecological problems caused due to the industrial activities in the country. In the name of environmental development, it cannot be permitted to degrade the quality of the ecology and increase different forms of pollution to the extent that it becomes a health hazard to the lives of all the citizens. It was further held that citizens have a right to fresh air and have a pollution-free environment in which they live. While incorporating the important features to the fundamental right provided in Article 21, certain principles were ascertained by the supreme court to be necessarily ensured for the protection of the atmosphere, which are as follows-

Polluter Pays Principle :  The basic concept behind this principle is that “ if you make a mess, it becomes your duty to clean it up”. The polluter pays principle does not lay emphasis on the ‘fault’ rather on the curative approach to repair the ecological damage caused by any person or group of persons. This principle was for the first time referred to in the year 1972 in the OECD Guiding Principles concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies.

Further, this principle was also applied in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India. In M.C Mehta v. Union of India and Ors( Calcutta Tanneries Case), the polluter pays principle was applied where industries were directed to be relocated and these industries were ordered to pay 25% of the cost of the land. The industries which did not pay the cost of the land and did not comply with the direction of the court were further directed to be closed. The Hon’ble court again restored to the directions which were earlier given in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.

Precautionary Principle :  Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration provides for the precautionary principle. According to this. In order to protect the environment, it is essential to apply the precautionary principle. This principle means that where there is a chance of great threat or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific certainty cannot be taken as a reason of not issuing the cost-effective methods.
In M.C Mehta v. Union, popularly known as Taj Mahal Case, was another judgement of the court passed based on the precautionary principle. In this case, public interest litigation was filed alleging the degradation of Taj Mahal due to environmental pollution. Court referred the case to the expert committee to seek technical on the matter. On the basis of the report of the committee. This monument is a monument of international repute. The industries located in the Taj Trapezium Zone(TTZ) were using coke/coal as the industrial fuel, thus emitting effluents.

It was held by the court that, the Taj apart from being a cultural heritage, is also an industry by itself and thus, it was directed to all the industries operating in TTZ to use natural gas as a substitute for coke/coal as an industrial fuel and if they cannot be restored to it for any reason, they must stop functioning and they may relocate themselves as per directions of the .`The industries on the relocation in new areas were to be given the incentives.

The doctrine of Public trust : This doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources which are required for fulfilling the basic amenities of life like air, water etc hold great importance to the people at large that it would be completely unjustified to make these resources available to the private ownership. Since these resources are the gift of nature that is why they should be made freely available to every individual of the society irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine obliges the government to protect resources for public use rather than being exploited by a private person for making economic gains. Thus, commercial use of natural resources is completely prohibited under this doctrine. For the effective and optimum utilization of resources, this doctrine mandates an affirmative action of the state authorities. Also, citizens are empowered to question the authorities if resource management is ineffective.