Environmental Protection Laws – Judicial Activism and PILs

Environmental protection has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges of the modern era, particularly in a country like India, which faces rapid industrialization, urbanization, and population growth. Although India has enacted several environmental laws such as the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Water Act, 1974, the Air Act, 1981, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, weak enforcement and lack of political will have often limited their effectiveness. Against this backdrop, the judiciary, through the device of judicial activism and public interest litigation (PIL), has played a crucial role in advancing environmental justice and filling legislative and executive gaps. The evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India is therefore inseparable from the proactive role of the Supreme Court and High Courts in interpreting constitutional provisions expansively to safeguard the environment.

The constitutional basis of environmental protection lies in Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g). While Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to safeguard natural resources. However, it is Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—that has become the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. Through judicial creativity, the Supreme Court has held that the right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment, thereby converting environmental protection into a fundamental right. This expansive interpretation has enabled courts to intervene actively in environmental matters, even in the absence of detailed statutory frameworks.

The PIL mechanism has been central to this process. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985), popularly known as the Dehradun Quarrying Case, the Supreme Court ordered closure of limestone quarries to protect the fragile ecosystem of the Himalayas, marking one of the earliest examples of judicial intervention in environmental matters. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, a series of PILs brought by environmental activist M.C. Mehta, the Court delivered landmark judgments addressing issues such as the Ganga river pollution, vehicular emissions in Delhi, and industrial pollution near the Taj Mahal. These cases not only provided immediate relief but also established enduring principles of environmental law, including the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, and sustainable development.

Judicial activism in environmental matters has also taken the form of structural remedies. In the Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987), the Supreme Court developed the doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous industries, going beyond the traditional rule of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher. This innovation was aimed at ensuring that industries engaged in dangerous activities bear full responsibility for harm caused, regardless of negligence. Such bold judicial interventions reflect the Court’s willingness to create new doctrines where legislative provisions are inadequate.

PILs have further led to the establishment of monitoring mechanisms. For instance, in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the Supreme Court monitored forest conservation in India for years through continuing mandamus, shaping national forest policy. Similarly, in cases concerning vehicular pollution in Delhi, the Court directed conversion of public transport to compressed natural gas (CNG), showing its readiness to enforce executive measures. These examples demonstrate that judicial activism has not been confined to declaring rights but has extended to continuous supervision of environmental governance.

However, this trend has not been free from criticism. Some scholars argue that excessive judicial intervention in policy matters amounts to overreach, encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and executive. Courts have sometimes been criticized for issuing directions without considering their practical feasibility or economic implications. For example, the sudden enforcement of CNG in Delhi created operational challenges, though ultimately it improved air quality. The debate highlights the tension between judicial creativity and separation of powers. Yet, given the failure of other institutions to effectively enforce environmental laws, judicial activism has often been the only effective mechanism for environmental protection.

In conclusion, environmental protection laws in India have been significantly shaped by judicial activism and the use of PILs. Through expansive interpretation of Article 21, innovative doctrines like absolute liability, and principles of sustainable development, the judiciary has provided leadership in advancing environmental justice. While concerns of judicial overreach remain valid, the contribution of the courts in filling governance gaps cannot be denied. The road ahead requires strengthening of statutory frameworks, effective enforcement by executive agencies, and greater citizen participation so that the burden of environmental governance does not fall disproportionately on the judiciary. Ultimately, environmental protection in India must evolve as a shared responsibility, with the courts continuing to play a guiding role while enabling other institutions to discharge their duties effectively.