Role Of Public Interest Litigation In Environmental Cases

Devendra

Anjali Chopra

ABSTRACT:

Florida Casino Serves As Refuge For Hurricane Ian Evacuees. This unexpected turn brought to the forefront the important issue of disaster preparedness and environmental sustainability, highlighting the importance of proactive measures taken by both the public and private sectors. Although the primary function of casinos is entertainment , it temporarily became a safe haven for those forced from their homes by the hurricane’s fury.This situation underscores the need for effective public interest litigation in environmental cases, as it allows concerned citizens and environmental organizations to bring both the government and holding private entities accountable for their role in disaster mitigation and environmental protection Public interest litigation can serve as a tool to review and challenge such decisions, forcing responsible parties to adopt sustainable practices and measures that reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events.

This research focuses primarily on several facets of Public Interest Litigation’s (PIL) function in environmental law. It aims to comprehend how effective public interest litigation is in environmental law. PIL has started to have an impact on environmental law in the post-industrial era. The influence started when there was no effective environmental protection legislation, which gradually led to public-spirited persons speaking for the environment. Because it is believed that the environment is an inanimate object that cannot communicate for itself. The idea of locus standi made it difficult for a third party to contact the court. Later, the rise of PIL was facilitated by the influence of Justice Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer. In order to address concerns like child labour, bonded labour, sexual harassment, environmental protection, etc., the locus standi concept was loosened in the 1970s. Because the country prioritised development projects over environmental concerns in the early years, the courts’ approach to hearing PILs for environmental protection was not always consistent. The paper makes an effort to comprehend both the negative effects of PILs and how effective PILs are in environmental law. PILs have been abused to some extent due to their lower court costs when compared to private litigation. Development and other projects that could have benefited the public are now being purposely delayed using PIL as a tool, and as a result, the Supreme Court is overrun with PILs. To separate the authentic ones from the others is a very challenging task for the PIL cell. Such pointless PIL are a serious threat and need to be carefully examined.

 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION:

Public Interest Litigation is a growing mechanism in India for protecting the environment. It might be challenging to prove that a single person’s legal rights were violated in environmental lawsuit since the parties that are impacted may be an unidentified or scattered mass of people. Before the 1980s, the locus standi in writ jurisdictions only applied to petitions filed by people who had experienced a violation of their protected legal rights or interests or were reasonably likely to do so. As a result, no one else was permitted to speak on behalf of a party who had been wronged because they would not have the locus standi necessary to file a petition. However, the introduction of Public Interest Litigation and the reports of the Committee on Legal Aid, which was chaired by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, led to a new advancement in the field of environment-focused jurisprudence.

When a plaintiff seeks to enforce the legal or constitutional rights of an individual or group of individuals who find it difficult to approach the appellate courts for redress due to poverty, a disability, or being in a disadvantageous social or economic position, the PIL’s more lenient procedural rules may be used.[1] As a result, PIL is known as the tactical arm of the legal movement and offers simple “access to justice” for the restoration of the violated human rights of socially underprivileged groups. The use of contaminated water, vehicle emissions, the ban on tree cutting in forests, projects that result in environmental pollution, the conversion of public parks into for-profit hospitals, and other environmental petitions under PIL have all been addressed by appellate courts in India using this novel strategy.[2]

CHAPTER 2: MEANING OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:

A technique or method called public interest litigation (PIL) focuses on the country’s citizens.[3] PIL or Public Interest Litigation, is a type of lawsuit used to protect or enforce the public interest. An individual’s or group’s interest that has an impact on their legal obligations or rights is said to be in the public interest. Financial interest could be a part of it.

There is no definition of PIL in any Indian statute. The PIL has been construed and defined by courts, nevertheless. In the case of Janata Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary[4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that that lexically, the term “PIL” refers to a legal action initiated in a court of law to uphold a public or general interest when the general public or a specific class of the public has an interest (including a financial interest) that affects their legal rights or obligations.

Due to their many benefits, such as quick results, low court costs, lax procedural rules, and the wide range of investigative techniques available to courts like special committees, PILs are thought to be the most efficient as well as the most frequently used judicial tool to protect the environment.[5]

CHAPTER 3: EVOLUTION OF PIL IN INDIA:

In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India[6], the Court reaffirmed that greater flexibility was required since there was a higher risk of legal standing being abused as bureaucratic power rose. The definition of locus standi was expanded to account for the socio-economic justice movement’s growing reach.

Public Interest Litigation in India was founded by Justice Krishna Lyser in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha, Bombay v. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors[7] in the year of 1976. The case included giving bonuses to an industry’s workers. It was initiated in National Federation of Railway v. Union of India and Ors[8] in which the right to file a writ petition for the resolution of common grievances was granted to employees.

The first Public Interest Litigation case in India was filed in 1979 and focused on the treatment of convicts who were awaiting trial. In Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar[9], the PIL was filed in response to the predicament of thousands of Bihar jail inmates awaiting trial. The hearings had an impact on the release of over 40,000 convicts awaiting trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to swift justice in cases involving the greater good of society is a Fundamental Right that falls under the purview of the “life” and “personal liberty” protected by Article 21. In succeeding cases, the same predetermined pattern was used.

In the case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors[10], heard by Justice P.N Bhagawati, according to a judgment, any member of society seeking compensation for the breach of their legal rights but unable to appear in court may use the Supreme Court’s or High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction. PIL was transformed into a potent tool for carrying out public duties by this judgement. As a result, any citizen may now approach the court to seek redress when the general public’s interests are at risk. Even routine letters from people with a concern for the public were treated as writ petitions by Justice Bhagwati.

In the case of Anil Yadav & Ors v. State of Bihar & Anr[11] held in 1981, exposed the police brutality. About thirty-three victims were brutally burned in the eyes by acid thrown by the police at the Bhagalpur jail in Bihar. The Bihar government was directed to transfer the blinded persons to Delhi for medical treatment at state expense after the Supreme Court harshly criticised the police. The Supreme Court determined free legal representation to be a fundamental right and a component of the right to life and personal freedom.

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Ors[12], under Article 32, an organization working to protect the democratic rights of persons who were labourer working on Asiad projects and complained of labour law violations was brought before the Supreme Court. In the current case, Justice P N Bhagwati emphasised that a PIL is not brought before the court solely to enforce one person’s rights against another, as is the situation with regular, traditional litigation. Instead, it is brought to defend the group rights of a group of people who have had their fundamental rights violated.[13]

 CHAPTER 4: ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES:

Although the PIL concept is not covered by any statutes or regulations, it might be seen as an innovation due to judicial activism. Justice is better served as a result of the judiciary’s significant contribution to the development of the litigation’s scope.

Even a single letter from any person can be viewed as a writ petition, Justice Bhagwati noted, and rules, laws, and procedures may not always be the first concern when it comes to justice.

However, there is another component to this theory. Between judicial activism and judicial overreach, there is a very fine line. If the Court exercises its authority by engaging the public, or one may say Suo Moto, it might be seen as more of an interference than an act of justice. It might be claimed that PIL cases are of relatively less relevance because they largely ignore the administrative part of justice and concentrate on situations where compensation is typically awarded as a remedy.[14]

CHAPTER 5: LANDMARK CASES OF PIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:

  1. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.:[15] This PIL case, also known as the Doon Valley case, is significant. The conflict started because of excessive mining in steep areas. RLEK and a group of residents appealed to the Supreme Court in this case to stop the progressive mining that was affecting the Mussoorie tree and forest cover and accelerating soil erosion that caused landslides and ground water blockages. The Court ordered the valley to be reforested and all mines to be closed.
  2. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987:[16] When gas spilled from the plant of Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, several people were injured. The victims of the gas leak were heard and were successful in seeking damages through PIL. The supreme court consistently emphasised that the right to clean air and water is part of the Indian Constitution’s Article 21’s right to life.
  1. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1991:[17] Delhi is union territory with 96 lakh people living there. Approximately 90 Lakh of this population live in urban regions. M.C. Mehta submitted this case, pleading for the court to issue the proper directives to lessen traffic pollution in Delhi. The Supreme Court mandated that the Central government take action to introduce environment as a required subject in educational institutions and to convey information and awareness about it through audio-visual media. It was believed that it was the responsibility of the government to prevent vehicle pollution from contaminating the air. Reiterating that the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental human right, the Supreme Court said that the right to clean air is also protected by Article 21, which is related to the right to life.
  1. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors., 1996:[18] In the present case, there was a dispute regarding various tanneries in the Tamil Nadu state. The primary source of drinking water, the river Palar, was being polluted by these tanneries. The Supreme Court mandated that a body be established and given all the authority it needs to handle the matter. The supreme court examined the study before rendering its decision, attempting to maintain a balance between development and the environment. The Court acknowledged that these tanneries in India are the country’s main source of foreign cash and that they employ thousands of people. However, it also poses a health risk to everyone and destroys the ecosystem.

After ruling in favour of the petitioners, the court ordered all tanneries to deposit Rs. 10,000 in the collector’s office as a fine. The court additionally ordered the government of Tamil Nadu to give Mr. M.C. Mehta a reward of Rs. 50,000 in recognition of his efforts to safeguard the environment. The court in this case also emphasises the Green Benches Constitution in India, which primarily deals with issues connected to environmental protection, as well as for quick and efficient resolution of environmental challenges.

  1. In Re Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest Case, 2019:[19] Aarey colony, also referred to as the “green lung of Mumbai”, is a Goregaon suburb. The Sanjay Gandhi national park and this gorgeous area together include more than five lakh trees. While a project to build a new vehicle shed is in the works, several trees are being cut down to make area for the aforementioned metro project. In a letter to C.J.I. Ranjan Gogoi, the law students pleaded with him to order the state administration to stop felling trees. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the letter and registered it as a PIL. The Maharashtra government was told by the supreme court not to remove any more trees in Mumbai’s Aarey forest. The Court ruled that if it is illegal to cut down trees, they cannot be cut down at all. For the Mumbai Metro car shed, the Supreme Court ordered the status quo on tree chopping.

 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION:

Greater advancements in the field of environmental law were made in 1976. The Stockholm Declaration has inspired emerging nations to approach environmental issues differently. It needs an overall shared perspective. Since 1982, the idea of PIL has grown in significance. This occurred as a result of the justice P N Bhagwati’s acknowledgment. The Supreme Court has since intervened to help the underprivileged. There was no comprehensive law in place until 1986. After fourteen years, the Stockholm Conference resulted in the creation of the Environment Protection Act in 1986.

The government was not very concerned with environmental issues at the time. Additionally, during this time period, a number of new enterprises emerged and the pollution issue started to progressively worsen. Due to the state agencies’ failure to implement appropriate environmental protection measures, various environmentalist and non-governmental organisations were compelled to file legal complaints. PIL is the most efficient way for them to contact the court. These environmental challenges have been properly addressed by the Indian judiciary. The judiciary made several attempts to manage the tension between development and the environment. As a result, it can be said that public interest litigation has helped India’s environmental law develop.[20]

CHAPTER 7: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

[1] Sengar, D. S., “PIL to ensure that institutions behave lawfully: Public Access to Environmental Justice in India”, Available at https://www.ijalr.in/2020/11/public-interest-litigation-as-means-of.html?m=1, Last Accessed on 19th October, 2022.

[2] Bhandari, Neha, “Public Interest Litigation As A Means Of Environment Protection In India”, 2nd November 2020, Available at https://www.ijalr.in/2020/11/public-interest-litigation-as-means-of.html?m=1, Last Accessed on 19th October, 2022.

[3] Toppr.com, “Public Interest Litigation”, Available at https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/jurisprudence/public-interest-litigation/, Last Accessed on 19th October, 2022.

[4] AIR 1993 SC 892.

[5] Castelino, Malaika, “All you need to know about Public Interest Litigation (PIL)”, 23rd February 2021, Available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-public-interest-litigation-pil/, Last Accessed 19th October, 2022.

[6] (1980) AIR 344.

[7] (1976) AIR 1455.

[8] (1995) WP (civil) 507 of 1992.

[9] (1979) AIR 1369.

[10] (1981) AIR 1982 SC 149.

[11] (1982) AIR 1008.

[12] (1982) AIR 1473.

[13] Sandeep, Aishwarya, “Role of PIL in Environment Protection”, Available at https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2021/07/03/role-of-pil-in-environment-protection/, Last Accessed on 19th October, 2022.

[14] Vashisth, Aniket, “Role of PIL in environment protection in India”, 17th September, 2020, Available at https://lawtimesjournal.in/role-of-pil-in-environment-protection-in-india/, Last Accessed on 19th October, 2022.

[15] AIR 1985 SC 652.

[16] 1987 AIR 965.

[17] 1991 SCC (2) 353.

[18] AIR 1996 SC 2715.

[19] 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1322.

[20] J, Sidharth A, and Reji, Christeena Anna, “A Critical Analysis on the Role of Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Jurisprudence”, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 2020, Available at https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Critical-Analysis-on-the-Role-of-Public-Interest-Litigation-in-Environmental-Jurisprudence.pdf, Last Accessed on 19th October, 2022.