Public interest litigation and the role of the judiciary in environmental protection

1. Why PIL suited environmental cases

Pollution harms many people a little rather than one person a lot. The victims are often poor and unorganised, the polluter is powerful, and the regulators were, in the 1980s, inactive. The traditional rule that only a person whose own right is infringed may sue would have shut most environmental claims out of court. Public interest litigation removed that bar.

• Relaxed locus standi: any public-spirited person or organisation acting bona fide may move the Supreme Court under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226 on behalf of those whose rights are affected.
• Epistolary jurisdiction: a letter or a newspaper report may be treated as a writ petition. The Doon valley case began with a letter from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra.
• Non-adversarial procedure: the court acts as an inquisitor, appoints commissioners, amicus curiae and expert committees, and frames remedies.
• New remedies: closure and relocation of industries, compensation and restoration costs, and continuing supervision.

2. Ratlam: the starting point

In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, 1980 INSC 138, (1980) 4 SCC 162, residents complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that open drains, slum dwellers' use of the roadside for want of latrines, and an alcohol plant's effluents had made their locality a nuisance. The magistrate ordered the Municipality to construct drains. The Municipality pleaded lack of funds. Krishna Iyer J. rejected the plea: a statutory duty to provide sanitation cannot be evaded on the ground of financial inability, and a court may compel a public body to perform it. The case was not a writ petition, but it set the tone: standing to the people affected, enforcement of public duties and the language of human rights in a nuisance case. The criminal law side is in the note on common law and criminal law remedies.

3. The landmark environmental PILs

• Doon valley: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1985 INSC 49, (1985) 2 SCC 431. Limestone quarries closed on the report of the Bhargava expert committee, with the Court accepting that the price of ecological protection (loss of jobs and revenue) must be paid.
• Oleum gas: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1986 INSC 281, (1987) 1 SCC 395. A Constitution Bench held that Article 32 is remedial as well as injunctive, so the Court may award compensation, and laid down absolute liability for hazardous enterprises.
• Ganga pollution: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 INSC 261, (1987) 4 SCC 463 (tanneries at Kanpur ordered to set up treatment plants or close), and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1988 INSC 3, (1988) 1 SCC 471 (directions to the Kanpur municipal bodies on sewage, dairies and dead bodies thrown in the river). The petitioner, a lawyer, had no personal interest; the Court accepted his standing as a person interested in protecting the lives of those who use the Ganga.
• Bichhri: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 INSC 237, (1996) 3 SCC 212. Polluter pays applied; the industries were made to pay for remediation of the soil and groundwater. Such a petition lies against the State and the Board for failure to perform statutory duties even if the private polluter is not itself a “State”.
• Vellore tanneries: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996 INSC 952, (1996) 5 SCC 647. Precautionary and polluter pays principles declared part of the law of the land; an authority directed to be set up under section 3(3) of the 1986 Act.
• Taj Trapezium: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1996 INSC 1534, (1997) 2 SCC 353, decided on 30 December 1996 by Kuldip Singh and Faizan Uddin JJ. Emissions from coke and coal-based industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone (about 10,400 square kilometres around the Taj) were corroding the marble. Applying the precautionary principle, the Court held that the onus was on the industries to show that their operations were environmentally benign. The 292 industries identified were directed to switch to natural gas or relocate outside the zone, with protection for their workers' wages and jobs.
• Forests: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 1996 INSC 1477, (1997) 2 SCC 267, decided on 12 December 1996 by Verma C.J. and Kirpal J. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to all forests irrespective of ownership or classification; “forest” must be understood in its dictionary sense and includes any area recorded as forest in government record. Non-forest activity (including saw mills and mining) in forests without Central approval was stopped across the country. The case is still pending and has produced hundreds of orders, including recent ones in 2024 and 2025.
• Delhi vehicular pollution (also M.C. Mehta, from 1998): the Court ordered Delhi's buses, taxis and auto-rickshaws to shift to CNG.

4. Techniques worth naming

• Continuing mandamus: the case is kept pending and the Court issues orders over years (Godavarman, the M.C. Mehta cases), supervising the executive instead of deciding once.
• Expert committees and commissions (Bhargava Committee, NEERI, the Central Empowered Committee in forest matters). In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, 1999 INSC 24, (1999) 2 SCC 718, the Court held that courts may refer scientific and technical questions to expert bodies.
• Compensation and exemplary damages under Article 32 (Kamal Nath; Bichhri).
• Directions to create institutions: authorities under section 3(3) EPA, the CNG switch, the suggestion of environmental courts that led to the NGT.

5. Criticism and limits

• Separation of powers: courts framing policy and running administration. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2000 INSC 489, (2000) 10 SCC 664, the Court itself said that it cannot sit in appeal over a policy decision to build a dam where no law is violated, and refused to stop the Sardar Sarovar project after decades of investment.
• Lack of expertise and reliance on committees whose reports parties cannot always test.
• Implementation: orders depend on the same agencies whose failure brought the case; Ganga and Yamuna remain polluted decades after the first orders.
• Misuse: petitions for private ends. Subhash Kumar (1991) was dismissed as motivated by a personal business dispute.
• The shift to the NGT: since 2010 most environmental disputes go to the National Green Tribunal, a specialised body; the Supreme Court and High Courts now act mainly in appeal and in the larger constitutional cases.

How this is examined

August 2024 asked for the role of PIL in environmental protection; February 2025 set a short note on judicial activism on environmental issues. For the essay, use the five headings above: why PIL, Ratlam, the landmark cases (pick five), the techniques, and a balanced conclusion. The short note can be built from sections 3 and 5 alone.