The term “judicial activism” signifies the anxiety of judges to find out suitable remedies for environmental problems. In the situation of such developments in the worldwide scenarios, the judicial decisions given by Indian judiciary are particularly crucial to examine.” Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of Ratlam Municipality vs. Vardhichandi, stated that “the human rights calling for the unpolluted environment must be implemented irrespective of financial constraints. The public nuisance because of pollutants is a challenge to the social justice component of the rule of law.”
Around 1980s, the Indian legal system, notably in the realm of environmental law, underwent a major transformation, abandoning its dormant attitude in favour of charting new social justice possibilities. Administrative and legislative activism, as well as judicial activism, typified this time period. Environmental activism is a subset of this, and it has taken off in India in a big way. The loosening of the concept of locus standi, enables the general public to access the Court under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, is one of the reasons for judicial activism in specific environmental situations. Furthermore, the recognition of environmental rights as a “fundamental right” under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has given the right to a clean and healthy environment a constitutional sanctity.
Judicial Activism is a concept that was originated in US in 1947. It can be defined as a philosophy of judicial decision making where by judges allow their personal views regarding a public policy instead of constitutionalism. This concept mainly deals with the involvement of Judiciary in making legislations that deems fit for the society. As through development of various legislations as well as our legal system it is clearly evident that with the involvement of judiciary, the legislation are coming more effectively.
The role of Indian judiciary can be best understood in the light of landmark judgements-
M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath the Supreme Court applied Public Trust Doctrine for the first time in India to an environmental problem. According to the Supreme Court, the public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea waters and forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. This doctrine states that the state is a guardian of natural resources, and natural resources are available for public for their enjoyment by nature and it cannot be changed into private property. The state is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Supreme Court opined, the traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other, is no longer acceptable, sustainable development is the answer. Sustainable Development means to fulfil the need of present generation without compromising the needs of future generation. Sustainable development is a balancing concept between ecology and development.
The Supreme Court of India has stated that the United Nations Conference on Human Environment raised environmental consciousness. The idea of “sustainable development” was also established for the first time at the Stockholm Conference in 1972, and it is now recognized as a part of Customary International Law The Supreme Court of India recognizes the following principles of sustainable development, which can be defined as a programme or strategy for sustained economic and social progress without compromising the environment and natural resources on which continued activity and development are dependent.
Inter-general equity-“Right development must be accomplished so that equality meets developmental and environmental demands to current generations,” says Principle 3 of the Rio de Janeiro Declaration. In the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group, the Supreme Court of India supported this approach. The principle’s major goal is to ensure that the current generation does not misuse nonrenewable resources in order to deprive future generations of their benefits.
The Precautionary Principle– “In order to conserve the environment, the precautionary approach shall be extensively adopted by States according to their capacities,” says Principle 15 of the Rio de Janeiro Declaration. “Lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as an excuse to postpone cost-effective steps to avoid environmental degradation where there is a threat of catastrophic or permanent
damage.” The Indian Supreme Court embraced this approach in a modified version, explaining that it has resulted in the principle of burden of proof in environmental matters, where those seeking to change the status quo bear the burden of proof as to the absence of detrimental effects of the proposed acts.6
Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration- National authorities should endeavor to promote the internationalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard for the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.” It is obvious from the preceding note that the goal of the above concept is to hold polluters responsible not just for compensating victims, but also for the costs of rehabilitating the ecosystem.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, a petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking closure of a factory engaged in manufacturing of hazardous products. While the case was pending, oleum gas leaking out from the factory injured several persons. The significance of the case lies in its formulation of the general principle of liability of industries engaged in hazardous and inherently dangerous activity.
Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounces the “Polluter Pays Principle” in this case which states that that the polluter must pay for the damage caused by him.
Conclusion-
These new innovations and developments in India through judicial activism open the many approaches to helping the country. In India, courts are extremely aware and cautious about the particular nature of environmental rights, as the loss of natural resources cannot be renewed. There are recommendations that need to be considered.
The environment and development are two sides of the same coin, and none can be sacrificed for the sake of the other. Both, on the other hand, are equally important for our better future. In this situation, it is up to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to handle these matters with extreme caution; only then will we be able to fulfill our goal of ensuring a pollution-free developed country for our next generation.
