World Environment Day: Important Judgments By Supreme Court

World Environment Day is celebrated on June 5 every year. The world has made great strides in the protection of the environment and ecology. The Indian judiciary has also been proactive in its attempt to safeguard the environment.

The Supreme Court of India has been a vanguard of the environmental protection.

Here are the five most important judgments of the Supreme Court of India on the Environment Law: -

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

A catastrophic leak of methyl isocyanate gas occurred at Union Carbide Corporation India Limited in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, causing 2,260 deaths and severe injuries to approximately 600,000 people. This incident, known as the world's worst industrial disaster, was followed by another gas leak at Delhi's Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries in December 1985. M.C. Mehta filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, led by P.N. Bhagwati, established the principle of "absolute liability," requiring the respondent to compensate the victims. The court mandated that Shri Ram Foods deposit Rs. 20 lakhs for damages and suggested a green belt around such companies. Additionally, it recommended creating an Environmental Court to resolve environmental disputes, which led to the National Environment Tribunal Act of 1995.

Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1987)

The West Bengal government leased 4 acres of Calcutta Zoological Garden land to the Taj Group for hotel construction, contested by the zoo's workers' union. The Supreme Court addressed concerns about the environmental impact on zoo animals, emphasizing the need to consider Article 48A (protection of the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizen's duty to protect the environment) of the Constitution. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, stressing the importance of environmental protection in such cases.

Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others (2022)

The Supreme Court mandated that each protected forest must have an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) of at least one kilometre from its boundary, with a 500-meter zone for the Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary. Mining in national parks and sanctuaries is prohibited. Existing activities within the ESZ must comply with guidelines or obtain authorization from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The ESZ's minimum width can be reduced for public interest but requires approval from the Central Empowered Committee and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

Narinder Singh & Others v. Divesh Bhutani & Others (2022)

The Supreme Court addressed whether land protected under a special order by the Haryana government fell under the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980. The court concluded that such lands qualify as forest lands and cannot be used for non-forest activities without Central Government approval. Changes in forest land use require prior authorisation from the central government.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)

Known as the "Dehradun Valley Litigation," this case involved the detrimental impact of limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie Hills on the ecosystem, water springs, vegetation, and local communities. The area was declared environmentally sensitive under the Environmental Protection Act, leading to the establishment of a Doon Valley Board for rehabilitation. The case reinforced the principle of sustainable development, balancing economic growth with environmental preservation.