Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

Environmental Protection And Supreme Court Activism

Environment and life are interrelated. Our lives depend on natural resources such as air, water,
and land. Environmental destruction threatens survival; conversely, human rights violations can
cause environmental degradation, for instance, war can lead to loss of access to clean water.
Thus, the quality of environment is undeniably related to our enjoyment of the right to life.
Because of this interrelationship, environmental and human rights advocates have pushed for the
extension of the right to address environmental harm. This essay examines how national courts
use the right to life to protect environment.

INTRODUCTION

Constitutions of almost all nations guarantee the right to life. In recent years, national courts of
some countries have used the right-to-life provision as a legal tool to protect environment by
redefining the scope and meaning of the provision. Indian courts have made the greatest
contribution on this issue. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personnel liberty except according to procedures established by law.
Despite being framed as a negative right, the Supreme Court expands it in two ways. First, any
laws affecting personal liberty should be reasonable, fair and just. Second, the court recognized
several liberties implied by Art.21. It is by the latter the court interprets the right to the life to
encompass the right to healthy environment. In Subash Kumar, one of the earliest cases on this
issue, the court opined that the right to life included the right to enjoyment of pollution free
water.

The role of the Supreme Court as final interpreter is increasingly reflected in various
judgments. The most important achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalisation
of environmental problems by the apex court of India. Indian environmental jurisprudence, is
achieving new dimensions day by day. The various statuses have been interpreted in the light of
the constitutional scheme relating to projection and preservation of the natural environment
issue. Before the year of 1980 there were legislations about control of pollution but little had
been done to really make pollution control. But in present time the Supreme Court of India
expand the meaning of Environmental rights. The Supreme Court making creative interpretation
which led to the creation of new rights. As under article 21 this court has created new rights
including the right to health and pollution free environment.

BACKGROUND

The root of development can be placed to the opinion of Krishna Iyer J. in municipal council
Ratlam V. Vardhichand.[i] The case arise out of simple circumstances. The municipal council of
Ratlam failed to take steps to maintain roads in a particular locality in a safe and sanitary
condition. The sole excuse of the municipal board was that it had no money to maintain the road.
Krishna Iyer J. stated that those were an urgent need to focus on the ordinary man. Quoting from
a famous work access to Justice[ii] Iyer J said the recognition of this urgent need reflects a
fundamental change in the concept of procedural justice.. The new attitude to procedural
justice reflects what Prof. Adolf Homburger has called a radical change in the hierarchy of
values served by civil procedure the paramount concern is increasingly with social justice,
i.e., with finding procedure which are conducive to the pursuit and protection of the rights of
ordinary people. The court noted that the matter had been pending for more than seven years. It
specifically read into the situation a constitution directive for the court and observed Where
directive principles have found statutory expression in dos and donts the court will not sit idly
by and allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. The law will relentlessly be
enforced and the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice.

If the opinion in Ratlam is read critically, the opinion reveals a paradigm change in the role of
the courts. Ordinarily and particularly before Ratlam the role of court was considered reactive.
They were specifically to dispense justice where rights have been denied. Iyer J added a
proactive dimension by stating that where that directive principals of the Constitution have
spelled out the desired acts or omissions, the court are under a duty to relentlessly enforce the
law. This formulation has emboldened the efforts at environmental protection. It reinforced the
idea that judicial power can command obedience from reluctant bureaucracies.

As the result of the 42nd amendment to the constitution the directive principals categorically the
need for a healthy environment and thus indicated the dos and donts needed for a healthy
environment. The necessary implication was that the courts have a duty to relentlessly enforce
this law. This was an open invitation to constitutionalism the problems of management of the
environment. This opened the doors of higher courts to intervene in enforcement of environment
legislation. A separate forum to force the state to take required measures for environmental
protection was opened. The result of Ratlam is that in the following 25 years there has been a
spate of judicial opinions from the higher courts that have formally put the environment
problems on a constitutional pedestal.

The fundamental right to a wholesome environment is not expressly guaranteed by the


Constitution. Part III of the constitution does not specifically enumerate any such right. The right
to wholesome environment has been sub-silentio recognized by the Supreme Court in a chain of
cases. This sub-silentio approach exhibits a tendency to avoid raising any controversy on such a
question. It can mean any of the two things. It can either mean that the right to wholesome
environment is ipso-facto a part of the right of life and personal liberty too well understood to
require rationalization. The other alternative reading may be to introduce this right without any
rationalization so as to avoid a debate on the issue. Be that as it may, recognition by the court of
a fundamental right to wholesome environment is a product of the process of widening the scope
of article 21 of the constitution which began with Maneka Gandhi[iii]

It is well known in constitutional jurisprudence that the last 55 years of constitutional


adjudication have seen article 21 of the Constitution undergoing three phases of change. The first
phase was of narrow textual interpretation followed by another stage of residual coverage. In the
third phase article 21 emerged as an overarching fundamental right in the Constitution of India.

In Maneka Gandhi, a liberal view of the scope of article 21 was taken, so that article 21 became
the repository of all rights which are necessary for the enjoyment of life. The liberal reading of
article 21 opened the way for incorporation of the right to a wholesome environment within the
protection of the Constitution. Bhagwati J delivering the majority judgment in Maneka Gandhi
observed:

It is indeed difficult to see on that principle we can refuse to give its plain natural meaning to the
expression personal liberty as used in article 21 and 19 and read it in narrow and restricted
sense so as to exclude those attributes of personal liberty which are specifically dealt with in
Article 19. We do not think that this would be a correct way of interpreting the provisions of the
Constitution conferring fundamental rights. The attempt of the Court should be to expand the
reach and meaning and content by a process of judicial construction.

Bhagwati J who was the principal architect of broadening the scope of article 21, himself had the
opportunity to extend the protection of article 21 to the right to wholesome environment. In rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P[iv]the issue was in respect of the
closure of certain limestone quarries in andaround the town of Mussoorie. The court itself noted
that the case was the first of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and
ecological balance the questions arising for consideration were of grave moment and
significance. The court also noted that the situation involved the conflict between development
and conservation. It emphasized the need for reconciling the two in the larger interest of the
country. The court, however, avoided any discussion of the fundamental right to a wholesome
environment or its emergence from the guarantee of personal liberty. There is only a small part
of the single sentence which refers to the need of safeguarding the right of the people to live in
healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without hazard to them
or their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affection of air, water environment.

Bhagwati J obviously avoided a discussion of the basic question whether a right to wholesome
environment was included under the umbrella of the right to life may be because the matter
involved a large number of quarries with a large number of workers whose existence depended
on these quarries. Yet another reason might be that Bhagwati J was already convinced of the
overarching scope of personal liberty since he was the prime architect of the expansive concept,
without any rationalization, proceeded to issue a remedy on a writ under article 32 without first
establishing that article 32 was available to the petitioners.

The same strategy of avoidance of the need to rationalize the inclusion of the right to wholesome
environment among the fundamental rights was repeated in M.C. Mehta V. Union of India.[v] In
this case also the question was whether the Supreme Court can decree compensation for violation
of the right to wholesome environment in a petition under article 32 of the Constitution. While
discussing at Length the power of the court to devise procedure appropriate for the enforcement
of a fundamental right, not even a sentence was devoted to a declaration incorporating the right
to wholesome environment within the guarantee of life and personal liberty. The same approach
was reflected by another bench of the apex court in Sachidanand Pandey V. State of W.B.[vi]
Chinnappa Reddy J referred to article 48A of the Constitution which enshrined the directive
principle to protect and improve the environment. His lordship also referred to article 51 A (g)
which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve
the natural environment. After referring to these two provisions the court should have considered
whether the right to wholesome environment was a fundamental right but it avoided doing so. It
held:

When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive principle of State Policy and the
fundamental Duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of
policy and so it is a matter for the policy making authority. The least that the Court may do is to
examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevant excluded.

The court in Sachidanand Pandey overlooked the basic problem that a remedy under article 32
could not be provided either for enforcement of the directive principle or for enforcement of a
fundamental duty. The basic sub-stratum, namely, violation of a fundamental right was not
established in sachidanand Pandey.

There can be two different explanations for what the court did. One can read sachidanand
Paandey to lay down the principle that article 32 remedies would also be available for
enforcement of directive principle and fundamental duty. In the alternative, it may be read as
contributing to the same attitude of avoiding specific rationalization of the right to wholesome
environment as a part of right to life.

Venkataramiah J followed the Pandey strategy in the Ganga Pollution case[vii]and referred to
the directive principle and the fundamental duty but not to the fundamental right. Finally in M/s
Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totaine, which was really a right to shelter case and did
not involve an environmental issue, Ranganath Misra J observed as follows:

Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three-food, clothing and shelter. The
right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to
food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to
live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be
kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a
suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect-physical, mental and
intellectual.

Sometime later, Saghir Ahmad J in M.C. Mehta V. Kamal Nath, observed as follows[viii]

In order to protect life, in order to protect environment and in order to protect air, water and
soil from pollution, this Court, through its various judgments has give effect to the rights
available, to the citizens and persons alike, under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Both Ranganath Misra J and Saghir Ahmad J have avoided any discussion of the question
whether right to wholesome environment is included in the right to life under article 21 of the
Constitution. It was perhaps taken for granted.
MERGING OF PART IV INTO PART III

Another significant development was merging of the directive principles of state policy into the
fundamental rights guaranteed by part III of the Constitution.[ix]

In environmental matters, however, a new situation emerged. The facts were that no fundamental
right textually ensured the right to wholesome environment. But as a result of the 42nd
Amendment to the Constitution, article 48A was added to the directives principles providing for
protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. The same
constitutional amendment also added Part-IV A which enumerated ten fundamental duties of the
citizen, including in clause (g) the duty to protect and improve the natural environment including
forest, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.

The courts have used the provisions of article 48A and 51A (g) to spell out a fundamental right
to wholesome environment as part of the right to life. On the face of it, it appears that this is
nothing new but the very embodiment of the approach to interpret

the fundamental rights in the light of directive principles. But it is not merely that. Most of the
observers of the Constitution have been misled into giving importance to this development. In
fact most of the courts themselves have avoided ratiocinating on the reasons for this conclusion.
On the contrary it would be really a welcome advance to raise environmental concerns to the
dignity of fundamental rights rather than always having to take the help of directive principle-the
sub silentio approach mentioned above. However, as noted in the preceding section it is a job yet
to be done. What has there fore, happened is a process of merging of certain directive principles
into fundamental rights.

The RIGHT TO a wholesome environment

Encouraged by an atmosphere of freedom and articulation in the aftermath of the Emergency, the
Supreme Court entered one of its most creative periods. Specifically, the court fortified and
expanded the fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the Constitution. In the process, the
boundaries of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 were
expanded to include environmental protection.[x]
The Supreme Court strengthened Article 21 in two ways. First, it required laws affecting
personal liberty to also pass the tests of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution,[xi] thereby
ensuring that the procedure depriving a person of his or her personal liberty be reasonable, fair
and just.[xii] Second, the court recognized several unarticulated liberties that were implied by
Article 21. It is by this second method that the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life and
personal liberty to include the right to a wholesome environment.

It means clear, hygienic, unpolluted environment which leads to a life of dignity.


Environmental degradation has disastrous impact on right to livelihood which is a part of the
right to life. The first indication of the right to a wholesome environment may be traced to the
Dehradun Quarying Case.[xiii] The SC evolved a new right to environment without specifically
mentioning it. The case was filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution and Orders were given with
emphasis on the need to protect the environment. In Ganga Pollution(Tanneries)Case[xiv] while
interpreting Art.21, Justice Singh justifying the closure of polluting tanneries observed: we are
conscious that closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and
ecology have greater importance to the people.

The Court evolved the principle of absolute liability of compensation in Shriram Gas Leak
Case[xv] through interpretation of the constitutional provisions relating to right to live and to the
remedy under Art. 32 for violation of fundamental rights. The premises on which the decision is
rendered is clear and unambiguous- the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment.
Right to live contains the right to claim compensation for the victims of pollution hazards.

The first time when the SC came close to almost declaring the right to environment in Art.21
was in 1990, in Chhretriya Pradushan Mukti Sangarsh Samiti v. State of U.P[xvi]. Chief Justice
Sabyasachi Mukherji observed: Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of
quality of life and living as contemplate in Art.21 of the Constitution.

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar[xvii], Justice K.N. Singh observed in a more vivid manner,
Right to live..includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full
enjoyment of life.

In Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India[xviii], the SC held that it has
power and duty to intervene and protect right to life of citizens, when an industry is established
without obtaining the requisite permission/ clearances and is continued to be run in blatant
disregard of law to the detriment of life and liberty of the citizens livig in the vicinity.

In recent times, the Supreme Court has recognized right to livelihood as a part of the right to
life under Art.21. This broad interpretation of right to life is very helpful in checking
Governmental action which has an environmental impact that threatens the poor people or forest
dwellers, tribals of their livelihood by dislocating them from their place of living or otherwise
depriving them of their livelihood.[xix]

The Indian Judiciary has shown unprecedented dynamism by expanding the scope of Art.21
by including in it right to clean and wholesome environment. This feat is remarkable in so far as
even some of the developed countries have yet to achieve such distinction.
BRUNDTLAND REPORT

The most remarkable contribution of the Supreme Court has been the adoption of the right to
sustainable development as a hard core principle of environmental law in India. The concept of
sustainable development itself is comparatively young. It first appeared in the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Report of 1980 in respect of
world Conservation strategy. From there, it was picked up by the Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, properly called the Brundtland Report.
The report itself was the product of 900 days of deliberation by an international group of
politician, civil servants and experts on environment[xx]

The concept of sustainable development is in its infancy. Holmberg and Sandbrook identified
some 70 definition of sustainable development. However a commonly accepted definition has
been proposed by Mrs. G.H. Brudthland in her 1987 report. According to her, sustainable
development is the development that meets the needs of the present without comprising the
ability of future generation to meet their own needs. This definition has strong ethical
orientation focusing upon the satisfaction of human needs rather than wants. It does not lay
emphasis on the protection of environment in general. Many contemporary environmentalists are
very critical of the concept of sustainable development because it licenses economic growth. But
the concept of sustainable development has mass appeal precisely because it is a catch phrase
capable of repetition in a parrot like fashion by environmental policy makers The Supreme
Court has however been careful to distinguish between the concept of sustainable development
and its definition by Brundtland preferring not to fall for any given content for the concept and
thus open the way for an active definition of sustainable development with a varying content. At
least at the moment, it has chosen to avoid the need to go for any precision. In a few leading
cases sustainable development has been adopted as the principle of environmental law.

In a series of cased which may not be large in number but which have much economic
significance, the supreme Court had to consider the application of the principle of sustainable
development. All these cases involved industries generating sizeable revenues and significantly
contributing to the industrial development of the country. However, these also show that the
industries hardly cared for the environment and which were not only significant polluters but
were also persistent. Repeatedly the environmental agencies implored upon them to rectify their
pollutant emissions and effluents but the industries hardly cared. Even directions issued by the
high courts and Supreme Court were ignored. In a sense, the behavioural pattern of the industry
was irresponsible. The situation seemed to be destined for doom for the industry hardly cared
and the environmental agencies could not really bring their weight to bear upon the industries.
The industries classically represent the case of too powerful defendants who continue to flex
their muscles totally ignoring the degradation of environment caused by the industries. Such
muscle flexing is common in soft states where the majesty of law is often compromised by
Considerations of state and wealth.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The first case involving claims to sustainable development was the Bichhri Village case wherein
a big public sector concern was producing chemicals. Its sister concern, started producing H
acid in the same complex. The chemical was meant exclusively for exports. The acid was highly
toxic and the effluents from it posed grave danger to land in the surrounding areas. The effluents
poisoned the earth, the water and everything else. The industries produced 25 hundred metric
tons of highly toxic sludge. The waste waters were allowed to flow out in the open and the toxic
sludge was thrown in the open in and around the complex. The toxic substances percolated deep
into the earth polluting the subterranean supply of water. The water in the wells and the streams
became unsuitable for human consumption as wells as irrigation. The people revolted and a
serious law and order situation was created forcing the district magistrate to close the industries
in January 1989. Yet nothing was done to remove the sludge. The long lasting damage to earth
and to underground water continued to exist.

The facts revealed that the units were established without obtaining no objection certificate from
the pollution control board for production of H acid. They also revealed that Supreme Court
had issued a direction as early as 11 December 1989 for supply of drinking water to the affected
villages and on 5 march 1990, the court directed that appropriate steps be taken for
transportation, treatment and safe storage of the sludge from open spaces and required that the
sludge be stored in a safe place. But nothing happened. In the succeeding year, the industry tried
to camouflage the sludge. Yet, they did nothing to remove it. Again, on 17 February 1992, the
court directed an assessment by experts who were also to suggest a package of remedies for its
transportation and safe storage. But still nothing happened. In 1994, the National Environmental
Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) submitted a report which showed that only 720 metric
tons of sludge was Bichhri.[xxi] entombed while the rest of the waste was just spread over the
fields. The NEERI report concluded that the indiscriminate and willful disposal activity by the
industry was further aggravating the contamination problem.

These facts highlight the non cooperative attitude of the industry to the danger which it had itself
created to the detriment of the environment in Appalled by the state of affairs, the Supreme
Court quickly reacted to the situation. It resurrected the principle laid down in the famous Shri
Ram case[xxii] which was threatened with oblivion because of the casual observation of
Ranganath Misra J in Union Carbide Corporation V. Union of India[xxiii] Misra J had felt it was
not so and rule in the Shri Ram case was the most appropriate one because it suited the
conditions obtaining in this country. There was also a veiled reference to the problem of
intransigent rich defendant whose pursuit of private profit blinded all claims of poor people. The
court held that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person
carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his
activity irrespective of the fact that he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The
court did notrefer in terms to the ideals of sustainable development. Nevertheless the situation in
this particular case classically represents the conflict between the claims of development and the
claims of sustainable environment. In fact jeevan Reddi J portrayed the conflict in the opening
words of his opinion which are worth reproducing. It highlights the disregard, nay, contempt for
law and lawful authorities on the part of some among the emerging breed of entrepreneurs,
taking advantage, as they do, of the countrys need for industrialization and export earnings.
Pursuit of profit has absolutely drained them of any feeling for fellow human beings- for that
matter, for anything else. And the law seems to have been helpless. Systemic defects? It is such
instances which have led many people in this country to believe that disregarded of law pays and
that the consequences of such disregard will never be visited upon them particularly, if they are
men with means.

The next case involving the same kind of problem related to tanneries in Tamil Nadu.[xxiv]The
tannery industry is a significant foreign exchange earner but its effluents are released on the
lands, the rivulets and the rivers polluting the sub-soil water and arable lands. Facts indicated
that the industries were reluctant to provide for treatment of effluents. The court felt that even
though the industry was earning foreign exchange and providing employment, contributing to
development, it has no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose a health
hazard.

The court held that sustainable development is the answer to the problem of conflict between
development and ecology. Without much discussion of the content of sustainable development
the court held that sustainable development is a balancing concept and has been accepted as part
of the customary international law. The court even went one step further to declare that the
precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of
the land in India.

In A.P. Pollution Control Board II V. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.),[xxv] the Supreme Court took
the question for in-depth consideration. The matter involved the question of permission for
establishment of industry within 10 km. of the two big water reservoirs, the Himayat Sagar and
the Osmam Sagar, serving the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Jagannadha Rao J,
speaking for the court, adopted the principle of sustainable development. It was asserted that in
todays emerging jurisprudence, environmental rights are described as 3rd generation rights. The
United Nations General Assembly has declared the right to sustainable development as an
inalienable human right. Rio Conference was also referred to which adopted as principle 1 the
principle that every human being is entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with
nature. The judge went on to refer to the Earth Summit Meeting of 1997 which reflected his
principle. He also referred to decision of the European Court of Justice in Portugal V. F.C.
Council,[xxvi] which emphasized the need to promote sustainable development while taking
account of the environment. The judge further referred to four recent decisions, one from Brazil,
the other from Philippines, another from Columbia and the fourth from Union of South Africa. In
Yanomani Indians V. Brazil,[xxvii] the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held that
the Government of Brazil violated the right tolife of Yanomanis by not taking measures to
prevent environmental damage. In Minors Opasa V. Deptt. of Environment and Natural
Resources,[xxviii] the Philippine Supreme Court refused to continue deforestation licenses
because it violated the right to a balanced and healthful ecology for future generations. In
Fundepublico V. Mayor of Bugalagrande[xxix] the Constitution Court of Columbia (17-6-1992)
treated the right to healthy environment as part of customary international law. In Wildlife
Society of Southern Africa V. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism of the Republic of
South Africa,[xxx] the right to healthy environment was further recognized. Lee has reported at
the end of the last century that since 1990 some 60 nations have specifically recognized in their
constitution the right to healthy environment.

The reference to all these international sources clearly indicated the willingness of the Supreme
Court to adopt the principle of sustainable development from the international domain as a basic
principle of environmental law in India. Rao J categorically stated: There is building up in
various countries, a concept that a right to healthy environment an to sustainable development
are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life.

The facts of the Nayadu Case clearly bring out the tensions generated by the principle of
sustainable development. The affected industries has spent valuable resources in setting up the
plants and their claim was that they should be allowed to function otherwise all the resources
would go waste. The state government has recommended their application. Even though the
central government refused the permission, the industry went on with the construction of its
plants. The court was not swayed by these claims. Instead, it took into account expert reports
from three different sources and after considering these reports felt that the court could not rely
upon a bare assurance that care will be taken in the storage of hazardous material. The court
preferred to proceed on the precautionary principle rather than a mere promise of the industries,
holding that a chance of accident in such a close proximity of reservoir cannot be ruled out.

The Supreme Court in the Nayudu case weighed the claims of development against the claims of
sustainability of the supply of pure water for drinking purposes. It gave precedence to the human
need for drinking water over and above the possible economic advantage which could be
generated by the industry for the state could be generated by the industry for state.

In the next case, the same conflict arose again but with contrary results. In Goa Fundatin V.
Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd.[xxxi] another division bench of the Supreme Court again faced a
contest in the claims of sustainability and development. Diksha Holdings sought permission to
build a hotel in Goa which it claimed would contribute to business of tourism which was the
main resource earner for the State of Goa. Which it claimed would contribute to business of
tourism which was the main resource earner for the state of Goa. The Goa Foundation contended
that the hotel was located in an area which fell in the Coastal Regulating Zone-1 (CRZ-1) where
no building was allowed. It also contended that the construction of the hotel will destroy the
ecology of coastal areas.

The adoption of sustainable development as the basic principle of environmental law in India
received its maximum acceptability in M.C. Mehta V. Union of India.[xxxii] In this case, a three
judge bench of the Supreme Court was Considering the question of issuing directions to
substitute diesel vehicles on the roads of city of Delhi with vehicles driven by compressed
natural gas (CNG). The matter had been in the court for as long as 16 year. As early as 23
September 1986, the court had directed the Delhi Administration to file and affidavit specifying
the steps to be taken for controlling pollution caused by emission of smoke etc. from vehicles
plying in Delhi. A committee called the Bhure Lal

Committee was established under section 3 of the EPA, 1986 and its report was accepted by the
court on 28 July 1998. A time limit was fixed for switching over diesel vehicles to CNG
vehicles. The government had been dragging its feet and sought to dilute the directions of the
Bhure Lal Committee by constituting another committee called the Mashelkar Committee which
recommended that emission norms must be laid down but the choice of fuels must be left with
the user.The Supreme Court categorically rejected the suggestion of the Mashelkar Committee
on the ground that nothing concrete had resulted from adopting the process of fixing emission
norms and directed that a time bound programme of replacing diesel buses with CNG buses be
implemented.The opinion of court is particularly noticeable for pronouncing the fundamental
nature of sustainable development as an underlying principle. The court observed:One of the
principles underlying environmental law is that of sustainable development. This principle
requires such development to take place which ecologically sustainable.

The two essential features of sustainable development are (a) the precautionary principle, and
(b) the polluter pays principle.

It is really difficult to find a comparable categorical statement from any other court. The practical
result of the hard attitude adopted by the court is that the environment of Delhi city is much more
clean and free of smoke now in comparison to what it was few years earlier.
In a recent case[xxxiii] the Supreme court was held that public trust doctrine and principle of
inter-generational equity are the integral part of the principle of sustainable development.

To sum up, the courts have not been sufficiently successful in establishing the right to
wholesome environment as a fundamental right. Had it been so, the efforts would have been far
more impact making. Fundamental rights have a supervening character. Any man can approach
the highest court for their enforcement. Write petitions can lie in every high court Any act,
legislative or executive, which seeks to abridge or take away any fundamental right can be
challenged. Greater vigor is, therefore, required to ensure that right to wholesome environment is
treated as a fundamental right. One option to establish it firmly as a fundamental right is to try
the remedy of constitutional tort. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.[xxxiv] the Supreme Court has
recognized that violation of fundamental right may give rise to a constitutional tort for which
compensation may be awarded. This claim for compensation in public law is based on strict
liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages. This is in addition
to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The court pointed out that this is
remedy available in public law assures that citizens live under a legal system wherein their rights
and interested shall be protected and preserver. The court held:

It is now a well- accepted proposition in most of jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary


compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps that only suitable
remedy for redressed of the establishes infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen.

CONCLUSION

The role of the Supreme Court as final interpreter is increasingly reflected in various judgments.
The most important achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalisation of
environmental problems by the apex court of India. Indian environmental jurisprudence, is
achieving new dimensions day by day. The various statuses have been interpreted in the light of
the constitutional scheme relating to projection and preservation of the natural environment
issue. Before the year of 1980 there were legislations about control of pollution but little had

been done to really make pollution control. But in present time the Supreme Court of India
expand the meaning of Environmental rights. The Supreme Court making creative interpretation
which led to the creation of new rights. As under article 21 this court has created new rights
including the right to health and pollution free environment. It is now a well- accepted
proposition in most of jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate
and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps that only suitable remedy for redressed of the
establishes infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen.

The action in public law is maintainable in the highest courts of the land. When this remedy
becomes available, one may witness spate of litigation seeking constitutional tort remedies for
infraction of fundamental right to wholesome environment. However, that possibility is still in
the womb of the future. There are many hurdles on the way. One amongst them is insufficient
strengthening of case for treating right to wholesome environment as a fundamental right. The
development, therefore, is not yet completed. The future may witness unfolding of mysteries of
the new fundamental right. When this happens, we may expect to see interesting developments in
the domain of constitutional jurisprudence.

Edited by Saksham Dwivedi

[i] (1980) 4 SCC 162.

[ii] M. Cappelletti & B. Garth- Access to justice 68 (vol.1, A world survey Ed.)

[iii] Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India Air 1978 SC 597 at 621

[iv] AIR 1985 SC 652.

[v]AIR 1987 SC 1086.

[vi] (1987) 2 SCC 295 of 298

[vii] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115

[viii] AIR 1990 SC 630.

[ix] State of Madras v. Champakam Doarairajan AIR 1951 SC 226.

[x] Article 21 states: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law.

[xi] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.


[xii] Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administration, Uninion Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC
746.

Religious Freedom And Environmental Protection

April 4, 2015 by admin Leave a Comment

- Sumit Kumar Suman, CNLU

Editors Note: The author mainly focuses on the point that whether any contravention between
the religious freedom and environmental protection or in other words we can say that if there is
any contravention then we have to know that same occurred, in which manner?

1. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN INDIA

Unbridled use of science and unprecedented use of technology have given birth to many
problems including the problem of eco-imbalances and environmental degradation. With the
advancement of science and technology, this problem has assumed threatening dimensions. This
problem has not only caused damage to nature but threatened the very existence of mankind.[i]

As we know that the forests, wild life, and more particularly trees were held in high
esteem and held a place of special reverence in Hindu theology. The vedas, Puranas, Upnishads,
and other scriptures of the Hindu religion gave a detailed description of trees, plants and wild life
and their importance to the people. The RigVeda highlighted the potentialities of the nature in
controlling the climate, increasing fertility and improvement of human life emphasizing for
intimate kinship with nature. Atharva Veda considered trees as abode of various Gods and
Goddess. Yajur Veda emphasized that the relationship with nature animals should not be that of
dominion and subjugation but of mutual respect and kindness.[ii] During these Vedic period,
cutting of trees was prohibited and punishable. So, as per this contention or we can say in other
words that the even in the ancient time our environment has been protected and if anyone not
complied with the same then they will be punished for the same.
Now if we look in the Medieval era then we also find the similar thing. Meaning thereby, in this
era Moghul emperor also from the point of view of environment conservation, a significant
contribution of Moghul emperors has been the establishment of magnificent gardens, fruit
orchards and green parks, round about their palaces, central and provincial head-quarters, public
places, on the banks of the rivers and in the valley and dales which they used as holiday resorts
or places of retreat or temporary headquarters during the summer season.[iii] But now a days, or
we can say that the present day increasing tirade against environmental pollution and eco-
imbalances proved a growing consciousness about the ecology (the term ecology is derived from
greek word oikos meaning a place to live. Popularly it is known as the study of relationship of
an organism or group of organisms to their environment.), economics, energy, employment and
equity.

Air, water, land are the representative samples of natural environment, and geophysical,
atmospheric and hydrological systems determine the character of biosphere including biota and
mankind of a region. If we try to disturb nature or natural environment in excess, it disturbs and
damages us irreparably. Therefore, it is necessary to know how to behave with various
components of natural environment.[iv] So, we have seen that the What were the conditions of
Environmental protection in India so, far as Ancient time that is to say Vedic period and
medieval era also.

2. ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights and environmental law have traditionally been envisaged as two distinct,
independent spheres of rights. Towards the last quarter of the 20th century, however, the
perception arose that the cause of protection of the environment could be promoted by setting it
in the framework of human rights, which had by then been firmly established as a matter of
international law and practice. Because of the many complex issues that arise when these two
seemingly distinct spheres interact, it is to be expected that there are different views on how to
approach human rights and the environment.

The first approach is one where environmental protection is described as a possible


means of fulfilling human rights standards. Here, environmental law is conceptualized as
giving a protection that would help ensure the well-being of future generations as well as
the survival of those who depend immediately upon natural resources for their
livelihood. Here, the end is fulfilling human rights, and the route is through
environmental law.

The second approach places the two spheres in inverted positions it states that the legal
protection of human rights is an effective means to achieving the ends of conservation
and environmental protection. The second approach therefore highlights the presently
existing human rights as a route to environmental protection. The focus is on the existing
human right. In this context, there exists a raging debate on whether one should recognize
an actual and independent right to a satisfactory environment as a legally enforceable
right. This would obviously shift the emphasis onto the environment and away from the
human rights. These are the subtle distinctions between the two ways in which this
approach can be taken.

A third approach to the question of human rights and the environment is to deny the
existence of any formal connection between the two at all. According to this approach,
there is no requirement for an environmental human right. The argument goes that,
since the Stockholm Conference in 1972, international environmental law has developed
to such extents that even the domestic environments of states has been internationalized.
In light of the breadth of environmental law and policy, and the manner in which it
intrudes into every aspect of environmental protection in an international sense and
notwithstanding the concept of state sovereignty, it is argued that it is unnecessary to
have a separate human right to a decent environment. This view militates against the
confusion of the two distinct spheres of human rights law and environmental law.
However, there are many who oppose this view. They argue that there is in fact a benefit
to bringing environmental law under the ambit of human rights. Environmental law has in
many parts of the world, be it at the international or domestic level, suffered from the
problem of standing. Because of this barrier, it is often difficult for individuals or groups
to challenge infringements of environmental law, treaties or directives, as the case may
be.

There has been a great deal of debate on the theoretical soundness of the idea of a human right or
rights to a satisfactory environment.[v] For one thing, there can occasionally be a conflict, or
tension, between the established human rights and the protection of the environment per se.
There are circumstances where the full enjoyment of the rights to life, to healthy living and to
ones culture can lead to the depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation.
Nevertheless, clearly there is a prima facie rhetorical and moral advantage in making the
environment a human rights issue.[vi] There has been a simultaneous increase in legal claims for
both human rights and environmental goods, which is a clear reflection of the link between
human and the environment and the dependence of human life on the environment.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION

The problem of the environmental pollution is as old as the evolution of homo sapiens on
the earth planet. However, different dimensions of the problem of environmental protection and
its management have taken a serious turn in the present era. So, Environmental law has come
into existence as a result of confrontation with the serious problems concerning environment. In
response to environmental problems, law seeks to protect and promote environment. It is
designed to prevent and control environmental pollution.

The constitution of India, which is the supreme law of land, has imposed an obligation to
protect the natural environment both on the state as well as the citizens of India, or we can say
that the Constitution of India is known as the basic law of the land from which all other laws
derive their sanctity or validity. Therefore, it must be a living and growing law means must be
able to cope with the newer situations and development. India is the first country to provide
constitutional protection to environment. Originally, the constitution did not contained a specific
provisions for protection and promotion of environment. In 1972, Prime minister, Smt. Indira
Gandhi attained the United Nations conference the followings two resolutions which are
considered to be the Magna Karta of environmental protection and sustainable development were
adopted:

Principle-1. Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life
of dignity and well being;

Principle-4. Heritage of wildlife and its habitat should be safeguard;


Principle-5. Economic system should be protected and struggle against pollution should be
supported;

Principle-8. Pollution of sea should be prevented; in this conference it was also said under a
principle that the economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favorable living
and working environment of men for the improvement of quality of life.

It is thus, clear that the Stockholm declaration is a significant document so far as international
and national environmental movement, the general assembly of U.N. passed resolution on 15th
August 1972 emphasizing cooperation between status in the field of conservation of human
environment.

Part IV of the constitution of India called directive Principles of state policy has imposed certain
fundamental duties on the state to protect the environment. Part IV A of the constitution has
imposed a fundamental duty on every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living
creatures.

So, The Indian constitution is amongst the few in the world that contains specific provisions on
environmental protection. In a case Supreme Court intervened to protect the forest wealth and
wild life from the ravages of mining in and around sariska sanctuary in the Alwar district of
Rajasthan, the court viewed its own constitutional role thus:

This litigation concerns environment. A great American Judge emphasizing the


imperative issue of environment said that he placed government above big business, individual
liberty above government and environment above all. The issues and concerns in this case far
transcend the trivialities and inhibitions of an adversarial litigation. All the parties must be
forthcoming in a concerted efforts to find a satisfying solution to problem which, in more ways
than one, is typical of the Indian predicament. We are, therefore, entitled to expect that the state
Government and the mining-entrepreneurs in their own their enlightened self interest will
discard the adversarial litigative stance.[vii] The Constitutional scheme to protect and preserve
the environment has been provided under Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) which includes
fundamental right to have healthy and pollution free environment, constitutional obligation of the
state and fundamental duty of all the citizens of India to protect and improve the natural
environment. The Supreme Court has clarified it in many cases. It has also been observed by the
court that this scheme is based on the constitutional policy of sustainable development which
must be implemented. If we focus on the Article 21 we also find that this article though
guarantees right to life and personal liberty,[viii] does not directly confer right to clean,
unpolluted and healthy environment. But various judicial pronouncements on various occasions
have expanded the right to life and personal liberty to include this right by recognising various
unarticulated liberties as recognised implicitly by Article 21. In recently decided case, Hinch
lal Tiwari v. kamla Devi[ix], the Supreme Court declared that material resources of a community
like forests, tanks, ponds, hillocks, mountains, etc. are natures bounty. They maintain a delicate
ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which
enables people to enjoy a quality of life which is the essence of guaranteed right under Article 21
of the constitution. The court decided that the ponds land could not be allotted for a residential
purpose.[x] So, there are several case law which has been decided by the Supreme Court and
high court as well with regard to environmental protection and constitutional obligation, or we
can say in the other words that the how or in which way the constitutional obligation played
important role in keep the clean the environment.

It is not only obligation upon state to clean the environment but the constitution of india also
declares that, in the provision mentions under Article 51-A(g), it shall be the fundamental duty
of a citizen of India to protect the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.[xi]

4. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

As we know that the religious freedom and environmental protection are two
different or we can say that both has own separate concept, even though there is overlapping
between them sometimes has been seen. For instance, we take the Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India, and which provides that, all citizen shall have right to freedom of speech
and expression but with the some reasonable restrictions of decency, morality, security of State,
defamation, incitement of offence etc., and if this article is interpret with respect to religious
freedom even no religion prescribed that prayer should be performed by disturbing the piece of
other nor it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums,[xii]so, in
this case it was declared that the right to religion under Articles 25 & 26 are subject to public
order, morality and health and no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be
performed through voice amplifier or beating drums.

In the most of the countries, including advanced countries, there is move for college
celebration of festivals and believe in show of fireworks to express their feelings. In India there
are various festivals (like deepawali, Durga puja, marriage celebrations, and etc.) when the
persons express their feeling of happiness by bursting fireworks in private and public. It has been
observed by the courts on various occasions that right to religion under articles 25 and 26 is not
an absolute right and it is subject to reasonable restrictions.[xiii] Even the ramleela and Akhanda
Path cannot be allowed to disseminate excessive noise which coerces a man to listen to
unwanted/undesired/unagreeable noise. Since the right to profess and caused by loudspeakers
can be checked in the interest of health. It can be restrained by injunction.

The Delhi High Court in Free legal Aid cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v. Gov. of NCT
of Delhi[xiv] declared:

.noise can be regarded as pollutant because it contaminates environment, causes


nuisance and effects the health of a person and would, therfore, offend right to life, Article 21, if
it exceeds reasonable limits. It was also observed by the court that effect of noise on health has
not yet full attention of our judiciary

In 1952 the Bombay High Court in State of Bombay v Narasu Appa Mali[xv] asked
authorities to regulate the use of loudspeakers during night when the Ganesh and Navratri
festivals were being celebrated. The Court ordered the strict implementation of Environmental
Acts. Nobody can object on celebration of festivals, but their means of celebration must not
disturb the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood was the strict view of the Judiciary.

So, as per these judicial decisions we can say that the if we talk about the environmental
protection then we also focus on the religious freedom which is used in wrong way by the people
we have to use in the manner in which there is no destruction of public peace and in the view of
public welfare some law has been enacted to religious freedom but subject to some restrictions.

Now, if we take example of water pollution then, also found that for the purpose of fulfill the
some religious purposes mainly in Hindu religion people polluted the water by throwing dead
human body in the river, pond, and some time also in well but not for religious purpose but some
personal purposes. So, there are several cause of polluted water in urban area due to
industrialisation not only water pollution occurred, but full environment becomes pollute. In case
of Birangana Religious society v. State of Orissa[xvi], where thw Court declared that the right to
profess, practice and propagate religion is subject to the provisions of Article 19(1)(b) of the
Constitution. It cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything which he does
not like or which he does not require. In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. Supdt.
of Police[xvii],a writ was filed under Article 226 of the constitution against the order of the
Police Officer (S.P.) to remove loudspeakers which were installed for a festival season. They
were installed within a radius of one kilometer. The loudspeakers were of horn type. The
respondents alleged that such type of loudspeakers caused irreparable damage to the ears and
they were installed without obtaining sanction from any competent authority. After filing a writ
petition on which stay was issued by a single Judge, the Guruvayur Temple authorities
approched the Kerala State pollution control board to get expert opinion regarding the use of
horn type loudspeakers. the board submitted its report to the court mentioning that the audibility
of the devotional songs was limited within the temple area and they also served the purpose of a
wake-up call for devotees who had to attend the morning pooja, or for essential announcements
as for missing persons, lost wallets and other goods. The announcements in various languages
used to guide the devotees from outside the state. further, there was no complaint suitable and
directional for such purposes and better suited for outside use. Thus, the report of SPCB found
that no noise pollution if the loudspeakers were put at height of three meters on the temple
premises. Therefore, the Court accepted the expert opinion f the PCB and permitted the use of
horn type loudspeakers and the Police authorities were directed to give sanction to management
Committee of the temple to install such loudspeakers. In Sayeed Maqsood Ali v. State of
M.P.[xviii], the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that reverence for life is a fundamental
principle of morality and life and life without good health is denial of life. It also mentioned that
even in the international sphere, emphasis is laid on proper health and a right is enshrined
providing security against sickness and disablement under Article 25 of the Universal declaration
of Human Rights, 1948. In this case, petitioner was a cardiac patient who was residing near an
eye hospitals and beside a Dharmshala. The Dharmshala run by the state, accommodates various
categories of persons and many religious functions were held in it throughout the year. It was
also made available to hold marriages and other functions with loudspeakers which were used at
a very high pitch disturbing the petitioner and other residents of the area.

The court observed that the noise is undoubtedly psychologically harmful as an invisible,
insidious form. It also causes irreversible harm. Therefore, it violates the right to life which
includes the right to health. Therefore, the Court directed that the noise pollution (regulation and
control) Rules, 2000 must be implemented and court also said that it is not only harmful to
human health and etc but also effect the environment.

5. CONCLUSION

As we know that Pure water or unpolluted water is an essential resources to the environmental
balance of the world. Water has life-giving properties which are crucial to the worlds global
ecosystem. Water has also been used as a source and a means of trade for hundreds of years.
Existing human rights do not allow protection of the environment before the actual harm has
occurred and are thus too anthropocentric and instrumental. Environmental considerations are
not always afforded sufficient weight with other interests.

Those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)A pleading freedom of speech and
right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental
rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by
amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to
speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and
nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others.
Nobody can indulge into aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too
with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a
noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of
others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21.Article 19(1)A
cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 21.

In the absence of an adequate regulatory framework specific to noise pollution, the status
quo has been determined partly by the interpretation of other laws. Important among these have
been Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression, and Article 25, which protects the free profession of ones religion. The use of a
loudspeaker, or setting of fire-crackers, has assumed the status of a fundamental right by virtue
of these two articles. Municipal bye-laws regulating their use have been enacted, but must take
care not to limit the freedoms afforded by the articles. Also, unless the connections between
noise and health are first judicially established, prohibitions against their use are difficult to pass.
The judiciary has nonetheless weighed in on questions of noise pollution

The Judicial response has been tremendous and appreciable, but the reality of ground remains
unchanged. Only peoples movement might bring about this and it is time that people take this
challenge.

[i] Prof. Satish C. Shastri,Environmental Law,4th ed., Eastern Book Company: 2012, p. 99.

[ii] B.N. Tiwari, Hindu caltutre and ecology in Gautam sharma (ed.), Environment, man and
nature (Reliance: New Delhi, 1989) pp. 23-27; as quoted in S Shanthakumars Introduction to
Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Haryana, LexisNexis:2005, p.73.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Supra note 6, p.1.

[v] See, for example, A. Boyle and M. Anderson (eds.), Human Rights Approaches to
Environmental Protection(Oxford,1996), at:
http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/sppeches/speeches_2005/humanrights.doc.

[vi] Margaret DeMerieux, Deriving Environmental Rights from the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 21 (3) Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 521 (2001).

[vii] Shyam Divan, Armin Rosencranz, Environmentallaw and policy in India, 2nd ed., New
York, Oxford university press: 2002, p.41.

[viii] Art. 21, No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.

[ix] Decided on 25-07-2001, (2001) 6 SCC 496: AIR 2001 SC 3215.

[x] Supra Note. 6, p. 53.


[xi] Supra Note. 7, p. 89.

[xii] Church of God (full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Magestic Colony Welfare Ass.(2000) 7 SCC
(Cri) 1350, as mentioned in S.C. Shastri, Environmental law, p.232.

[xiii] Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadi Maharaj v. State of Gujrat, (1975)
II; Bijaynanda Patra v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 2000.

[xiv] AIR 2001 Del 455.

[xv] State of Bombay v Narasu Appa Mali AIR 1952 Bom. 82

[xvi] (1996) 100 CWN 617.

[xvii] AIR 1998 Ker 122.

[xviii] AIR 2001 MP 220.

[xiii] AIR 1988 SC 2187

[xiv] AIR 1988 SC 1037

[xv] AIR 1987 SC 1086

[xvi] AIR 1990 SC 2060

[xvii] AIR 1991 SC 420

[xviii] AIR 1996 SC 1446

[xix] Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of U.P (AIR 1987 SC 374)

[xx] W.M. Adams, Green Development: Environment and sustainability in the third world
(1990).

[xxi] India Council for Environ legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3SCC

[xxii] 13. M.C. Mehta V. Union of India (1987) 1SCC 395


[xxiii] (1991) 4 SCC 584.

[xxiv] Vellore citizens welfare forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715

[xxv] (2001) 2 SCC 62.

[xxvi] 3 CMLR 331 (1997)

[xxvii] 33 ILM 173 (1994)

[xxviii] 7615 OEA / SCRLV / 2 / 66 (1985

[xxix] (1996) 9 BCLRV 1221 (TK)

[xxx] 25 Col J Env IL 283 (2000)

[xxxi] (2001) 2 SCC 97 at 108.

[xxxii] Air 2002 SC 169 at 1698.

[xxxiii] Intellectual forum, Tirupathi v. state of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC

[xxxiv] (1997) 1 SCC 416

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen