Environmental Justice**

Meaning and Concept

Environmental Justice is a concept and a movement that recognises that environmental benefits and burdens are often unequally distributed among different communities and populations. It calls for equity and fairness in environmental decision-making and outcomes.

Fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, colour, income, etc., with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies**

This widely accepted definition, often associated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), captures the essence of environmental justice. Let's break down its components:

Fair Treatment: This means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, or commercial operations or policies. It is about ensuring that environmental risks (like pollution, exposure to hazardous substances) are not unfairly concentrated in specific communities.
Meaningful Involvement: This requires that all people, regardless of their background, have an equal opportunity to participate in decisions about environmental laws, regulations, and policies that affect their lives. It means that:
- People have access to relevant information in a timely and understandable manner.
- They have opportunities to participate in the decision-making process.
- Their contributions and concerns are genuinely considered by decision-makers.
Meaningful involvement ensures that the voices of those most affected by environmental decisions are heard and valued.
Applicability: This applies to the entire spectrum of environmental management – from the initial development of laws and regulations, through their implementation (how they are put into practice), to their strict and unbiased enforcement. It also extends to the development process itself, such as the siting of industrial facilities or infrastructure projects.
Inclusivity: The concept explicitly states that this fair treatment and involvement should be regardless of characteristics like race, colour, national origin, income, caste (in the Indian context), age, gender, or any other socio-economic factor. This highlights that the unequal distribution of environmental burdens often follows lines of social inequality.

In India, the concept of environmental justice is highly relevant, particularly in the context of developmental projects, resource extraction, industrial pollution, and waste management. Issues of caste, tribal status, and economic disparity often intersect with environmental degradation, leading to environmental injustice where marginalised communities bear the brunt of pollution and resource depletion while benefiting less from the development activities causing the harm. The principle is increasingly recognised in Indian jurisprudence, although its application remains a challenge.

Environmental Justice and Vulnerable Communities

A core focus of environmental justice is the recognition that certain communities are particularly susceptible to environmental harm and often bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and environmental degradation. These are often referred to as vulnerable or marginalised communities.

Disproportionate impact of environmental harm

Vulnerable communities experience a disproportionate impact from environmental problems. This means that they face higher risks, greater exposure to pollutants, and suffer more severely from the consequences of environmental degradation compared to other segments of the population. This disproportionate impact is not accidental but is often the result of intersecting socio-economic, historical, and political factors.

Reasons for this disproportionate impact include:

Siting of Hazardous Facilities: Polluting industries, hazardous waste disposal sites (landfills, incinerators), thermal power plants, and other environmentally undesirable facilities are often located in or near areas inhabited by low-income groups, ethnic minorities, or socially marginalised communities. This is often due to factors like cheaper land, less political resistance, and existing zoning laws. For instance, in India, many industrial estates with high pollution potential are located near villages predominantly inhabited by Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
Lack of Infrastructure and Services: Vulnerable communities often lack basic infrastructure like piped water supply, proper sewage systems, and waste management services. This can lead to direct exposure to contaminated water, uncollected waste, and unsanitary conditions.
Poor Quality Housing: Residents in low-income housing or informal settlements may live in structures that offer less protection from outdoor air pollution or are built on contaminated land.
Limited Access to Information and Decision-Making: Vulnerable communities may have limited access to information about environmental risks in their area (e.g., monitoring data, health advisories) due to language barriers, lack of literacy, or lack of digital access. They may also face barriers to effectively participating in public hearings or environmental decision-making processes due to logistics, lack of awareness, or historical exclusion.
Occupational Hazards: Many individuals from vulnerable communities work in sectors (e.g., waste picking, certain types of industrial labour, agriculture exposed to pesticides) that expose them directly to environmental hazards.
Cumulative Impacts: Vulnerable communities often face multiple environmental stressors simultaneously (e.g., living near a polluting factory, dealing with poor sanitation, facing contaminated groundwater). The cumulative effect of these exposures can have significantly worse health outcomes than a single exposure.
Limited Access to Healthcare: Even when health problems arise from environmental exposure, vulnerable communities may have limited access to quality healthcare to treat these conditions.

Examples in India include tribal communities displaced by mining projects in forest areas, villagers living downstream from polluting industries facing contaminated water, urban slum dwellers exposed to high levels of air pollution from traffic and industries, and coastal communities affected by pollution from ports or industrial discharge. Addressing environmental justice requires actively identifying these disproportionately burdened communities and implementing policies and enforcement measures that ensure equitable protection and meaningful participation in environmental decision-making.

Judicial Activism in Environmental Law**

Role of Judiciary in Environmental Protection

In India, the Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and the High Courts, has played a remarkably significant and proactive role in the evolution and enforcement of environmental law. Often referred to as "judicial activism", this role has been crucial in filling legislative gaps, compelling the executive to implement environmental laws, and developing new environmental jurisprudence.

Interpreting laws broadly

One of the primary ways the Indian judiciary has contributed to environmental protection is by broadly interpreting existing laws, especially the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. While the Constitution did not initially contain explicit environmental rights, the Supreme Court and High Courts have interpreted the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 to include the Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment.

This broad interpretation has allowed citizens to approach the courts when their right to a healthy environment is threatened by pollution or environmental degradation, even if there isn't a specific environmental statute directly applicable or being violated. This judicial interpretation has essentially elevated environmental protection to a fundamental right, giving it a higher status in the legal hierarchy.

Beyond Article 21, courts have also interpreted the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) relating to environmental protection (Article 48A) and the Fundamental Duty of citizens to protect and improve the natural environment (Article 51A(g)) to support their pro-environment stances. While DPSPs and Fundamental Duties are not directly enforceable, courts have used them to give direction and purpose to environmental laws and to impress upon the state and citizens their environmental responsibilities.

Furthermore, courts have interpreted environmental statutes (like the Water Act, Air Act, EP Act) liberally to favour environmental protection, especially when dealing with ambiguities or potential loopholes. They have often given effect to the 'spirit' and 'objectives' of the laws rather than adhering to narrow literal interpretations that might hinder effective pollution control or conservation.

Issuing novel directions

Perhaps the most visible aspect of judicial activism in environmental law is the courts' willingness to issue specific, often detailed, directions (mandamus) to government authorities, industries, and other entities to take proactive steps for environmental protection or to remedy environmental harm. This goes beyond the traditional judicial role of merely adjudicating disputes and involves the courts in overseeing the implementation of environmental laws and policies.

Facing instances of executive inaction or inadequate enforcement by regulatory agencies (like Pollution Control Boards), courts have stepped in to issue directions on a wide range of environmental issues, such as:

Ordering the closure or relocation of polluting industries that fail to meet environmental standards.
Mandating the installation of pollution control equipment.
Directing authorities to clean up polluted rivers or areas.
Setting timelines for the completion of environmental projects (e.g., construction of sewage treatment plants).
Issuing guidelines for hazardous waste management, vehicular pollution control, or noise pollution.
Monitoring the progress of court-ordered environmental programs.
Directing the establishment of new environmental institutions or the strengthening of existing ones (e.g., contributing to the groundwork for the NGT).
Developing and applying environmental principles like the Polluter Pays principle, Precautionary principle, and Sustainable Development Principle, often issuing directions based on these principles.

Many of these directions have been issued in the context of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), where courts have entertained petitions raising environmental concerns on behalf of the public or the environment itself. This proactive approach, though sometimes criticised as judicial overreach, has been instrumental in pushing the environmental agenda forward in India and achieving results where administrative mechanisms have faltered.

Landmark Judgements

Several judgments by the Supreme Court of India have significantly shaped the landscape of environmental law and demonstrated judicial activism in this field. These cases have not only provided specific relief but have also laid down fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence applicable across the country.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case)**

This landmark case, decided in 1986 by the Supreme Court, arose from the Oleum gas leak from a Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries plant in Delhi shortly after the devastating Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The case is famous for establishing the principle of Absolute Liability.

Background:

Following the gas leak, which caused harm to several people, the court initiated proceedings. A key question was the extent of liability of an enterprise engaged in hazardous activities, especially since the defendant argued for limited liability based on the English rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, which allows certain exceptions.

Key Principle Established:

The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, rejected the application of the strict liability rule from Rylands v. Fletcher to cases involving hazardous industries in a modern industrial state like India. Instead, it propounded the principle of Absolute Liability.

The Court held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone from the carrying on of such hazardous activity. If any harm results, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are injured by the accident, and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions that operate in the tortious principle of strict liability (like Act of God, act of a third party, etc.). The measure of compensation must also be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, so as to have a deterrent effect.

This judgment established a more stringent standard of liability for hazardous industries in India, making it easier for victims of industrial accidents involving hazardous substances to claim compensation, without the need to prove negligence. The principle later influenced the drafting of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (Tanneries Case)**

Decided by the Supreme Court in 1996, this case dealt with severe environmental pollution caused by tanneries in the state of Tamil Nadu, particularly the pollution of groundwater and agricultural land due to the discharge of untreated effluents containing hazardous chemicals.

Background:

A Public Interest Litigation was filed highlighting the severe environmental damage caused by the tanneries and the inaction of regulatory authorities. The case required the court to address the issue of industrial pollution and the principles that should govern environmental regulation.

Key Principles Applied:

The Supreme Court, in this case, explicitly recognised and applied two fundamental principles of environmental law that are crucial in the context of sustainable development:

The Precautionary Principle: This principle states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The court held that under this principle, the onus of proving that the activity is not harmful falls on the developer or industrialist, not on the state or the public.
The Polluter Pays Principle: This principle holds that the costs of pollution prevention, control, and cleanup should be borne by those who cause the pollution. The court directed the polluters (the tanneries) to pay the cost of reversing the environmental damage and compensating the victims.

The court integrated these principles with the concept of Sustainable Development, recognising the need to balance development with environmental protection. The judgment directed the Central Government to constitute an authority to implement the court's directions, including assessing and collecting compensation from polluters and overseeing remediation efforts. This case solidified the legal standing of these international environmental principles within Indian jurisprudence.

S. Jagannath v. State of Orissa**

This case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1996 (simultaneously with the Vellore Tanneries case principles, though separate proceedings), addressed the environmental damage caused by unsustainable shrimp farming (aquaculture) activities along the coastal areas.

Background:

PILs were filed highlighting the widespread damage to coastal ecosystems, agricultural land, and groundwater caused by commercial aquaculture activities, often in violation of coastal zone regulations and without proper environmental safeguards.

Key Issues and Directions:

The Supreme Court examined the environmental impact of the unregulated shrimp farming industry, which was causing salinization of soil and water, destruction of mangroves, and displacement of traditional fishermen and farmers. The court applied the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle.

The court held that the coastal areas and the environment are fragile and need protection. It found that the widespread conversion of agricultural land and coastal wetlands for commercial aquaculture was causing severe ecological degradation. The court issued several crucial directions, including:

Banning non-traditional, intensive, or semi-intensive aquaculture farms within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ).
Directing the closure of existing aquaculture farms operating within the CRZ in violation of the rules.
Ordering the setting up of an authority to assess the environmental damage and determine the compensation to be paid by the polluters to the affected individuals and for environmental restoration.
Mandating that the land affected by pollution be restored by the polluters to its original condition at their cost.

This judgment was instrumental in protecting India's fragile coastal ecosystems from environmentally damaging activities and reinforced the application of the 'Polluter Pays' and 'Precautionary' principles in environmental remediation.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar**

This 1991 Supreme Court case is significant for explicitly declaring the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Background:

A Public Interest Litigation was filed alleging pollution of the Bokaro river due to the discharge of slurry from a fertiliser plant and seeking direction to the management to prevent the pollution. The petitioner argued that the pollution was causing harm to the health of the people who used the river water and that this violated their right to life.

Key Principle Affirmed:

The Supreme Court held that the right to get pollution-free water and air is part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that the right to life is a fundamental right which includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.

While the court ultimately dismissed the specific petition in this case on the grounds that it lacked public interest and appeared motivated by private interests, the significance of the judgment lies in its clear articulation that a clean environment is an integral component of the fundamental right to life. This judicial pronouncement provided a strong constitutional basis for environmental litigation and activism in India, allowing citizens to directly invoke Article 21 for environmental protection.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Environmental Cases

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been a transformative procedural tool in the hands of the Indian judiciary and environmental advocates, playing a pivotal role in addressing environmental concerns that might otherwise have gone unaddressed. PIL allows courts to entertain litigation filed not for the personal benefit of the petitioner, but for the benefit of the public interest or a section of the public.

Traditionally, courts required a petitioner to demonstrate 'locus standi', meaning a direct personal injury or infringement of their legal rights, to file a case. This often made it difficult to bring cases about environmental damage, where the harm is often collective, diffuse, or affects voiceless entities like rivers, forests, or future generations.

Starting in the late 1970s and gaining momentum in the 1980s, the Supreme Court and High Courts liberalised the concept of locus standi, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights violations and public grievances. This opened the doors for PILs in environmental matters.

How PIL Facilitated Environmental Justice:

Bypassing Locus Standi: PIL enabled concerned citizens, environmental groups, lawyers, and social activists to file petitions on behalf of affected communities, the environment itself (as a guardian), or the general public interest. This allowed environmental issues to reach the court even if the direct victims were poor, unorganised, or unaware of their rights.
Addressing Systemic Failures: Many environmental PILs have highlighted systemic failures in governance, including the non-implementation of environmental laws, inaction by regulatory agencies, or failure to prevent pollution by state-owned or private entities. Courts have used PILs to compel government bodies to perform their statutory duties.
Proactive Judicial Role: PIL has provided a platform for judicial activism, allowing courts to investigate environmental problems, gather information (sometimes through court-appointed committees), issue wide-ranging directions for remediation and prevention, and monitor compliance with their orders. Landmark cases like the M.C. Mehta series of cases illustrate how PIL has been used to address diverse environmental issues like pollution of the Ganga river, air pollution in Delhi, and industrial hazards.
Developing Environmental Jurisprudence: Many of the key environmental principles in India (like absolute liability, polluter pays, precautionary principle) have been developed or significantly applied by courts in the context of PILs.
Promoting Transparency and Accountability: PILs have brought environmental issues into the public domain, increasing awareness and putting pressure on polluters and regulatory authorities to be more transparent and accountable.

PIL has thus been an indispensable tool in Indian environmental law, facilitating access to justice for environmental protection, compelling executive action, and driving the development of environmental jurisprudence. While its use has also faced some criticism (e.g., potential for misuse, judicial overreach), its contribution to strengthening environmental governance and protecting the environment in India is undeniable.