BASICS OF LEGISLATION

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

(SESSION 2017-2018)

Subject: BASICS OF LEGISLATION

Topic: CLIMATE CHANGE AND LEGISLATION IN INDIA

UNDER SUPERVISION OF SUBMITTED BY

Dr. SHASHANK SHEKHAR MOHIT MISHRA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW) 170101083

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL STUDIES 1st SEMESTER

B.A.L.L.B.(Hons.)
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during
the writing of this case analysis.

Words are inadequate in offering my deep sense of gratitude to my Professor for his
precious guidance.

With his enthusiasm, his inspiration and his great efforts to explain things clearly and
simply, he helped throughout my analysis of work with lots of encouragement, sound
advice, and good innovation.

I would also like to thank the librarians of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library who extended
their assistance to me by helping me out consult the relevant books.

I know that despite my best efforts some discrepancies might have crept in which I
believe my humble Professor would forgive.

Thanking You All

Mohit Mishra
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

Table of content

1. Definition

2. Is International communities’ eco-friendly?

2.1. United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change

2.2. US exit or Paris exit?

2.3. What we need discussion or new Paris summit?

3. How far India is serious?

3.1. National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008)

3.2. The Finance Bill 2010-11 and the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010

3.3. Electricity Act 2003

3.4. Stand of Judiciary on climate change and environment

4. Conclusion
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

1. Définition
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.”

These were the lines by Mahatma Gandhi which fits the present day scenario .The increasing
threat to environment by the human to environment The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)1 defines it as a change of climate that is
attributed directly or indirectly to human activity, altering the composition of the global
atmosphere. Human activity includes the pollution that arises from industrial activity and
other sources that produce greenhouse gases. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, have the
ability to absorb the spectrum of infrared light and contribute to the warming of our
atmosphere. Once produced, these gases can remain trapped in the atmosphere for tens or
hundreds of years. Carbon dioxide is colorless. We produce it just by breathing. But
combustion – from fuel or friction – leaves darker traces. Once a point of contention,
manmade climate change is now scientific fact. More than 97 per cent of climate scientists
agree that changes to the global climate in the last century have been caused by
anthropogenic activity2.
The so-called ‘Consensus on consensuses’ has drawn more attention to an issue that, since
the start of this century, has divided many. But the evidence is overwhelming. Since the
industrial revolution, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have
been exorbitant, leading to the phenomenon that, until relatively recently, has been known by
the misnomer ‘global warming’.The change in terminology to ‘climate change’ was to
emphasize that the pollution of our atmosphere could result in a variety of extreme weather
events, not just warming. With increases in global temperatures, processes such as
desertification are transforming once thriving areas into arid environments. And yet, since
warm air is capable of holding far greater quantities of water, due to higher evaporation rates,
storms and other extreme climate events have become more frequent and intemperate. Here’s
the lowdown on exactly what climate change is, what it means and why climate change
denial is a disaster.

1
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change( adopted on 9 th May 19992 ,entered into force 21st
march 1994) 1771 UNTS 107
2
Judith Lean, “Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, vol. 1, January/February 2010, 111-122

1
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

2. Is International communities’ eco-friendly?

The first time climate change was recognized as a serious problem by an international
gathering was in 1979. The First World Climate Conference3, held in February of that year,
was a major scientific meeting. It issued a declaration calling on the world's governments "to
foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate that might be adverse to the well-
being of humanity."

A large number of international conferences on climate change have been convened since
then. Attended by policy-makers, government leaders, and scientists, they have addressed
both scientific and policy issues. Important meetings have been held in Toronto, The Hague,
Bergen and elsewhere. The Second World Climate Conference4, held in 1990 in Geneva, was
a particularly crucial step towards a binding global convention on climate change. Some of
these meetings have taken place under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialized
agencies. Others have been held within regional such as the European Community, the
Commonwealth, and the South Pacific Forum.

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 5is the first binding international
legal instrument to address the issue. Adopted after two years of intensive negotiations within
the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Climate Change (INC), it was opened for
signature in Rio de Janeiro at the June 1992 UN Conference on Environment and
Development. The Climate Convention will help to fill the legal vacuum that has existed until
now. The Convention was signed by 155 states during UNCED. It will enter into force after it
has been ratified by 50 states. States must now strive to ensure that the Convention enters into
force as soon as possible.. In addition, two other international environmental treaties address
climate change indirectly. The amended 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete
the Ozone Layer legally obliges its parties to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by the
year 2000. Although inspired by concern over the destruction of the ozone layer, this protocol
is significant also for climate change since CFCs are greenhouse gases. Similarly, the 1979
Geneva Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution and its protocols regulate

3
The First World Climate Conference, World Meteorological Organization WMO, held from12 February to 23
February 1979; Geneva, Switzerland.
4
The Second World Climate Conference, WMO, held from 29 October to 7 November 1990, Geneva
Switzerland.
5
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change( adopted on 9 th May 19992 ,entered into force 21st
march 1994) 1771 UNTS 107

2
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

the emission of noxious gases, some of which are precursors of greenhouse gases .These
treaties, however, do not address the complex set of inter-related climate issues.

2.1. United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an intergovernmental

treaty developed to address the problem of climate change. The Convention, which sets out
an agreed framework for dealing with the issue, was negotiated from February 1991 to May
1992 and opened for signature at the June 1992 UN Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) — also known as the Rio Earth Summit. The UNFCCC entered into
force on 21 March 1994, ninety days after the 50th country’s ratification had been received.
By December 2007, it had been ratified by 192 countries6.

Parties to the Convention continue to meet regularly to take stock of progress in

implementing their obligations under the treaty, and to consider further actions to address the
climate change threat. They have also negotiated a protocol to the Convention. The Kyoto
Protocol was first agreed in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, although ongoing discussions
were needed between 1998 and 2004 to finalize the “fine print” of the agreement. The
Protocol obliges industrialized countries and countries of the former Soviet bloc (known
collectively as “Annex I Parties”) to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of
about 5% for the period 2008-2012 compared with 1990 levels. However, under the terms
agreed in Kyoto, the Protocol only enters into force following ratification by 55 Parties to the
UNFCCC, and if these 55 countries included a sufficient number of Annex I Parties that at
least 55% of that group’s total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 were represented. Although
the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, rejected the Kyoto Treaty
in 2001 after the election of President George W. Bush, a majority of other Annex I Parties,
including Canada, Japan, and the countries of the European Union ratified the treaty. In
November 2004, the Russian Federation also ratified the Protocol, thus reaching the 55%
threshold. The Protocol finally entered into force as a legally-binding document on 16
February 2005. By December 2007, the Protocol had been ratified by 177 countries,
including Annex I parties representing 63.7% of Annex I greenhouse gas emissions in 1990.

With the immediate future of the Kyoto Protocol secured by Russia’s ratification, an
increasing focus of discussions since 2005 has been on the multilateral response to climate

6
Id.

3
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

change post-2012, when the Protocol’s first commitment period expires. At the UN Climate
Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, delegates agreed on a “roadmap” for 2008 and
2009 designed to bring about an agreement by December 2009.

2.1.1Negotiation of the UNFCCC:

The international political response to climate change began with the adoption of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. The UNFCCC sets
out a framework for action aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system. Controlled
gases include methane, nitrous oxide and, in particular, carbon dioxide. The UNFCCC
entered into force on 21 March 1994, and now has 192 parties.

2.2.Kyoto Protocol:

However, in light of increasing scientific evidence about the risks of climate change, it soon
became evident to policy makers that a further negotiated agreement might be necessary. In
December 1997, delegates at COP 3 in Kyoto, Japan, agreed to a Protocol to the UNFCCC
that commits developed countries and countries in transition to a market economy to achieve
quantified emission reduction targets7. These countries, known under the UNFCCC as Annex
I parties, agreed to reduce their overall emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of
5% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012 (the first commitment period), with specific
targets varying from country to country8. The Protocol also established three flexible
mechanisms to assist Annex I parties in meeting their national targets cost-effectively: an
emissions trading system; joint implementation (JI) of emission reduction projects between
Annex I parties; and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows for emission
reduction projects to be implemented in non-Annex I parties (developing countries).
Following COP 3, parties began negotiating many of the rules and operational details
governing how countries will implement and measure their emission reductions. To date, the
Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 177 countries, including Annex I parties representing
63.7% of Annex I greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force
on 16 February 20059.

7
Kyoto Protocol ,United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ,adopted on 11 December 1997 at
COP3 in Kyoto, Japan.< http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf> assessed on 23 October 20117
8
Id.
9
Id.

4
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

2.3. Buenos Aires Plan of Action:

In November 1998, COP 4 agreed on the process for finalizing the rules and operational
details of the Protocol in a document known as the Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA).
The BAPA set COP 6 as the deadline for finalizing these details and strengthening
implementation of the UNFCCC10. In November 2000, parties met at COP 6 in The Hague,
the Netherlands, to complete these negotiations. They were not successful, and COP 6 was
suspended until July 2001, when it reconvened in Bonn, Germany. After further talks, parties
adopted the Bonn Agreements, a decision that provided high-level political direction on the
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. But delegates were still unable to finalize text on
some issues, and agreed to forward all the draft decisions to COP 7 for final resolution11.

2.4. Marrakesh Accords:

In November 2001 at COP 7 in Marrakesh, Morocco, delegates reached agreement on the

outstanding matters in the Marrakesh Accords12. These Accords consisted of a package of
draft decisions on many of the details of the Kyoto Protocol, including the flexible
mechanisms, reporting and methodologies, land use, land-use change and forestry
(LULUCF), and compliance. The Accords also addressed issues such as capacity building,
technology transfer, responding to the adverse effects of climate change, and the
establishment of three funds: the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund, Special Climate
Change Fund (SCCF), and Adaptation Fund. Delegates built on the Marrakesh Accords
at COP 8 and COP 9, elaborating on various technical rules and procedures. At COP
10 parties also agreed on two new agenda items focused on adaptation and mitigation, and
began informal negotiations on the complex and sensitive issue of how parties might engage
on commitments to combat climate change in the post-2012 period.

10
Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted
on 25th November 1998 at COP4 in Buenos Aires,Argentina .
11
Bonn Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ,adopted on 5 th July 2001 at
COP6 in Bonn, Germany .
12
Marrakesh Accords, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ,adopted on November 2001
at COP7 in Marrakesh, Morocco

5
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

2.5. Montreal Conference – COP 11 and COP/MOP 1:

COP 11 and COP/MOP 1 took place in Montreal, Canada, from 28 November to 10

December 2005. COP/MOP 1 took decisions on the outstanding operational details of the
Kyoto Protocol, and formally adopted the Marrakesh Accords. The meetings also engaged in
negotiations on longer-term international cooperation on climate change. COP/MOP 1
addressed possible processes to discuss post-2012 commitments and decided to establish a
new subsidiary body, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I
parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG)13.

After lengthy negotiations, COP 11 also agreed to consider long-term cooperation under the
UNFCCC “without prejudice to any future negotiations, commitments, process, framework
or mandate under the Convention.” This would take place through a series of four workshops
constituting a “Dialogue” on the matter through to COP 1314.

2.6. UN Climate Change Conference in Bali – COP 13 and COP/MOP 3:

The “United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali” was held from 3-15 December
2007. These meetings resulted in the adoption of 15 COP decisions and 13 COP/MOP
decisions and the approval of a number of conclusions by the subsidiary bodies. These
outcomes covered a wide range of topics, including finalizing the Adaptation Fund under the
Protocol, a decision on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, and
outcomes on technology transfer, capacity building, the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible
mechanisms, the adverse effects of combating climate change, national communications,
financial and administrative matters, and various methodological issues15.

The main focus in Bali, however, was on long-term cooperation and the post-2012 period,
when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires. Negotiators spent much of their
time seeking to agree on a two-year process – or “Bali roadmap” – to finalize a post-2012
regime by December 2009. Negotiations were conducted in a number of groups under the

13
Montreal Conference, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held from 28 November
to10 December 2005, Montreal, Canada
14
Id.
15
UN Climate Change Conference, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held from 3th
to15 December 2007, Bali.

6
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

aegis of both the Convention and the Protocol.” Under the Protocol, the AWG considered a
timetable for determining Annex I commitments for the post-2012 period. Delegates also
outlined a preparatory process for the second review of the Protocol under Article 9, and held
discussions on the “Russian proposal” on voluntary commitments. Negotiations on these
issues were only completed on Saturday afternoon, 15 December. These decisions provide
guidance and direction for a series of meetings over the next two years under both the
Convention and Protocol, with the aim of concluding a comprehensive framework for the
post-2012 period at COP 15 and COP/MOP 5 in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.

2.7. Paris Summit

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world today. It is responsible
for the increase in extreme weather events, as well as an unbroken series of hottest years on
record. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2016 named it as one of
biggest risks we face.

In recognition of this, 179 countries and the EU spent two weeks in Paris last December
hammering out the final wording of an agreement to keep global temperature increase well
below 2C and if possible, below 1.5C. The reduction in temperature can only be achieved
through a significant reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases. Known as COP21, (The
21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), it was
one of the largest gatherings of world leaders ever seen16.

2.7.1US exit or Paris exit?

Everyone who attended COP21 made emission-cutting pledges. These are known as
“intended nationally determined contributions”, or INDCs for short. The US, for example,
pledged to cut U.S. climate pollution by 26-28% from 2005 levels. China’s target is to reach
peak CO2 emissions by 2030 at the latest, lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60% to 65%
below 2005 levels by 2030, and to increase the share of non-fossil energy carriers of the total
primary energy supply to around 20%.The EU plans to cut emissions by 40% by 2030 on
1990 levels. For the agreement to come into effect, at least 55 countries have to join it, and
those countries have to represent 55% of global emissions. Once this is achieved, everyone
will be obliged to meet their emissions-cutting pledges. The Paris Agreement signifies years

16
Paris summit ,United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted on December 2015 came
into force February 2016 , Paris,france

7
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

of work in trying to combat climate change. In 1992, countries joined an international treaty,
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol
became a legally binding treaty. It committed its parties to internationally binding emission
reduction targets. It ends in 2020, and COP21 is designed to take its place17.

One of the biggest headlines to come out of last year G20 summit in China was the
announcement that both China and the US had ratified the Paris Agreement on Climate
Change. The announcement was significant, because the US and China are the world’s two
biggest polluters. China is responsible for 20.09% of global emissions, while the US is
responsible for 17.89%18.But recent headlines made by Donald trump on US to exit the
Summit has shaken the summit in major ways including funding .US , which is responsible
for 17.89% carbon emission, exit is a major setback for the agreement. However, once a party
has joined the agreement, they cannot begin the process of withdrawal for three years. So it
bit difficult for US to exit for three years.

2.7.2. What we need discussion or new Paris summit?

European leaders dismissed Donald Trump’s claim that the Paris climate accord can be
renegotiated after the US president announced he will pull out of the deal struck in 2015 to
seek better terms19.

Shortly after Trump’s announcement, the leaders of France, Germany and Italy released a
joint statement rejecting Trump’s assertion that the climate deal can be redrafted. The three
leaders called on their allies to speed up efforts to combat climate change and promise to do
more to help developing countries adapt. The unyielding response of Italy, France and
Germany came amidst a tsunami of global condemnation for Trump’s decision to renege on
an agreement made by 195 countries after decades of negotiation. The US will join Syria and
Nicaragua as the only governments to be outside the agreement. But it has been 5 month
since the announcement but there has been no practical solution by any countries on how the
other countries to treaties will cover up the gap of 17.89% carbon emission. There has been
no urgent meeting only condemnation by the nation, nor there is any official statement of any

17
Id
18
Alex grey, what is the Paris Agreement on climate change?
< https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/what-is-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change/>
19
Coral Davenport, Justin Gillis, Sewell Chan And Melissa Eddy, “Inside Paris Summit”
< https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/un-climate-change-conference> assessed on 23 October 2017

8
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

countries about their new promise percentage to cut the carbon emission to cover US carbon
emission.

3. How far India is serious?

A study on the impact of climate change by the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, shows
countries in the tropics will be the worst affected as a result of global warming. India is one
of the worst affected, with its per capita output expected to fall by 1.33 percentage points.

Other countries in the region, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and
Malaysia will be similarly affected. Note that the impact of most developed nations, located
in the temperate zone, is negligible. The overall impact on China’s growth, too, is estimated
to be negligible. On the other hand, some northern nations such as Russia, Norway and
Canada will see their growth improve.

These predictions underline the importance of policies to combat the impact of climate
change in countries like India. Financial distresses, lack of timely help and crop failure have
often been blamed for the spiraling numbers in farm suicides in India. Now, a US study has
added climate change as another significant factor that is driving the disaster northwards.

Just a degree rise in temperatures above 20 degrees during the crucial crop growing season
(June-September) could push up the number of suicides by 70. In the last 30 years, a total of
59,000 farmer suicides in India have been attributed to the direct cause of rising temperatures
by the study published by the University of California, Berkeley researchers.

3.1. National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008)

The Plan outlines eight “national missions” running until 2017. These include solar, energy
efficiency, sustainable habitat, Green India (REDD & LULUCF), water, Himalaya
ecosystems, agriculture and strategic knowledge of climate change. he Prime Minister’s
Council on Climate Change is in charge of the overall implementation of the plan. The plan
document elaborates on a unique approach to reduce the stress of climate change and uses the
poverty-growth linkage to make its point. Emphasizing the overriding priority of maintaining
high economic growth rates to raise living standards, the plan “identifies measures that
promote development objectives while also yielding co-benefits for addressing climate
change effectively.” It says these national measures would be more successful with assistance
from developed countries, and pledges that India’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions “will

9
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development

objectives.”20

3.2. The Finance Bill 2010-11 and the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010

The Finance Bill 2010-11 provided for the creation of a corpus called the National Clean
Energy Fund, to invest in entrepreneurial ventures and research in the field of clean energy
technologies. Subsequent to the budget announcement, the Central Board of Excise &
Customs (CBEC) issued a notification dated June 22, 2010 to notify the Clean Energy Cess
Rules, 201021.The cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved constitution of a
‘National Clean Energy Fund’ (NCEF) in the public account of India along with the
guidelines as well as modalities for approval of projects to be funded from the Fund

3.3. Electricity Act 2003

The Electricity Act 2003 sought to better co-ordinate development of the power sector in
India, providing a comprehensive framework for power development. Objectives include:
consolidating laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and the use of
electricity; promoting competition in the industry; and promoting efficient and
environmentally benign policies22.

3.4. Stand of Judiciary on climate change and environment

It may also be noticed that there are certain important constitutional provisions which give
the citizens the right to approach the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India to
protect their fundamental rights. Article 226 of the Constitution gives the right to citizens to
approach the High Court to enforce their fundamental rights. Article 226 of the Constitution
gives the right to citizens to approach the High Court to enforce their fundamental rights and
the High Courts are given the power to issue various writs. Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution could be invoked by the citizens for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III
of the Constitution, namely, the Fundamental Rights. It is also to be noted that Article 21 of
the Constitution guarantees one of the important fundamental right to the citizens and says
that no person shall be deprived of his life “right to life” contained in Article 21 has been
given a very wide interpretation by the Supreme Court of India. Article 48-A which is one of

20
National Action Plan on Climate Change 2008 s vol 1 (Introduction to policy)(5)
21
The Finance Bill 2010-11 and the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010 s vol 6 (3)
22
Electricity Act 2003 s vol 55 (10)

10
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

the Directive Principles of State Policy states that the State shall endeavor to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Part IV –
A was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article
51-A(g) thereof specifically says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect
and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures23.

Till 1980, not much contribution was made by the courts in preserving the environment. One
of the earliest cases which came to the Supreme Court of India was Municipal Council,
Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 162224. Thereafter, series of cases were filled before
the Supreme Court and there was a dynamic change in the whole approach of the courts in
matters concerning environment.

The Supreme Court of India interpreted Article 21 which guarantees the fundamental right to
life and personal liberty, to include the right to a wholesome environment and held that a
litigant may assert his or her right to a healthy environment against the State by a writ
petition to the Supreme Court or a High Court. The Dehradun Valley litigation is the first
case requiring the Supreme Court to balance environmental and ecological integrity against
industrial demands on forest resources. The case arose from haphazard and dangerous
limestone quarrying practices in the Mussoorie Hill Range of the Himalayas. Miners blasted
out the hills with dynamite, extracting limestone from thousands of acres. The mines also dug
deep into the hillsides, an illegal practice that resulted in the cave-ins and slumping. As a
result, the hillsides were stripped of vegetation. Landslides killed villagers and destroyed
their homes, cattle and agricultural lands. The State of Uttar Pradesh failed to regulate the
mining as required by existing mining laws. In 1982, eighteen leases came up for renewal.
The State rejected all renewal applications recognizing the extent of ecological devastation in
the Valley. However, the Allahabad High Court issued an injunction allowing the applicants
to continue mining, presumably in the belief that economic considerations outweighed
ecological factors.

In 1983, the Supreme Court received a letter from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra25, complaining against the environmental degradation, the Court treated the letter as

23
Art 51 , constitution of India, 1950
24
Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622
25
Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P 1989 AIR 594

11
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

a writ petition under Article 32. The case developed into complex litigation as lessees of
more than 100 mines joined the action. The Supreme Court played an important role
essentially in conducting a comprehensive environmental review and analysis of the national
need for mining operations located in the Dehradun Valley. In addition, the Court provided
for funding and administrative oversight of reforestation of the region.

In 1983, the Court prohibited blasting operations, while it was reviewing to determine
whether the mines were being operated in compliance with the safety standards as laid down
in the Mines Act of 1952 and other relevant mining regulations. The Court appointed an
expert committee (the Bhargava Committee) to assess the mines.
In March 1985, upon the recommendation of the Bhargava Committee, the Court ordered that
the most dangerous mines and those falling within the Mussoorie City Board limits be denied
leases and that their operations cease immediately. The second committee (the
Bandyopadhyay Committee) was empowered to consider plans submitted by the miners to
safeguard the environment and to hear the claims of people adversely affected by the mining.
In 1987, after the review of the Bandyopadhyay committee’s report, which was based on
ecological considerations, the Court concluded that mining in the Valley should cease. The
Court stated that while they restate their conclusion that mining activity should only be
permitted to the extent it is necessary in the interests of the defence of the country and
safeguarding of the foreign exchange position. The Supreme Court in the case of Ambika
Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat26 held that the state government may renew pre-existing
mining leases only with the review and approval of the centre, as required under the Forest
Conservation Act. In the Dehradun Valley litigation, the court concluded in 1988 that
continued mining in the valley violated the Forest Conservation Act. Moreover, the court
went beyond the requirements of the Act to conserve forest merely and issued orders to
ensure that the valley be reforested. The court noted that although the state of Uttar Pradesh
had a reforestation programme, the record of reforestation was not encouraging. Later the
court established a Monitoring committee comprising of the Central, State, and Local
officials and two ‘public-spirited’ citizens to oversee reforestation, mining activities and ‘all
other aspects necessary to bring about normalcy in the Doon Valley’. The court also provided
the Monitoring Committee with funding by ordering that 25 per cent of the gross profit of the
remaining mines be deposited in a fund controlled by the committee.

26
Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat 1987 AIR 1073

12
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

Vijay Shree Mines, one of the lessee permitted by the court to operate until the expiry of its
lease in 1990, misused the permission. The lessee continued to quarry limestone in an
unscientific manner and in disregard of the directions issued by the Monitoring committee. In
an application filed by the committee, the court held that the mining activity secretly carried
on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused immense damage to the area and directed the firm to
pay Rs. 3 lakh to the fund of the Monitoring committee. An outcome of the Dehradun Valley
litigation was the ARC Cement Case. ARC Cement operated a cement factory in the valley
since November, 1982 until restrained by an order of the court. The company employed about
400 persons. In 1987, the Supreme Court declined permission to ARC to open its polluting
cement factory and encouraged the company to shift it elsewhere. When the matter came up
four years later, the Supreme Court was unsatisfied by the progress, primarily because the
company had failed to propose an alternative site. The effort to relocate the cement factory
failed and in February 1995, ARC Cement was ordered to wound up by the Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Based on the principles laid down in the Dehradun
valley litigation, the Supreme Court clarified that the renewal of a lease should be in
accordance with the law in operation on the date of renewal. The Madras H.C reprimanded
officials for granting a mining lease to golden granites in reserved forests in Tamil Nadu. The
Court held that the impugned order permitting quarrying of black granite though subject to a
special condition that the commencement of operation should await Central Govt.
concurrence, failed to give effect to the words ‘prior approval’ in sec 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act,1980.’
Likewise, the Andhra Pradesh and Patna H.C’s have held that no mining operations may be
carried out unless prior approval of the Central Government is granted in favour of renewing
a mining lease in a protected or reserve forest. In the Hyderabad Abrasives case, the Court
held that the lessee may obtain Central Government approval after the lease but prior to
carrying on any work in the forest. The Himanchal Pradesh H.C followed the lead provided
by the Supreme Court in the Dehradun Valley Litigation to protect the Saproon Valley from
degradation. The Mountains of Saproon valley are rich in limestone deposits that have been
quarried for over centuries. The expansion of unscientific and unsystematic mining
operations in the 1980s caused severe water pollution and soil erosion. In a public interest
litigation filed by the residents of Saproon Valley, the H.C abided by the recommendations of
the approved committee and ordered the mines where scientific mining was not economically
viable or technically possible to shutdown. Other mines where further mining was possible
subject to safeguards and precautions were permitted to continue under the supervision of

13
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

monitoring committee. The Supreme Court in Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh27 held
that Mining operations though detrimental to forest growth, are part of lay out of the industry,
provision should be made for investment or infrastructural planning to reforest the area and to
protect environment and regenerate forest. The Ministry of Environment and Forest and all
Secretaries of all the State Government holding charge of forest departments have a duty to
prevent mining operations affecting the forest. It is the duty to ensure that the industry or
enterprise do not denude the forest to become menace to human existence nor a source to
destroy flora and fauna and biodiversity. In re Court on its own motion v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others28 National Green Tribunal (NGT) was granted jurisdiction by
a 2010 statute “over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment is
involved and such question arises out of [one or more of seven environmental protection
statutes enacted between 1974 and 2002].” The 2010 NGT Act empowers the NGT to initiate
cases as well as order various remedies in those cases. In this case, the NGT did both: no
party brought the case and the NGT ordered authorities in Himachal Pradesh to undertake
several measures to remediate various environmental harms identified by consulting experts
engaged by the NGT.The NGT concluded that the government of Himachal Pradesh had
violated its obligations under article 21 (as well as articles 48A and 51A) by failing to restrict
development and road and pedestrian traffic in and around the increasingly touristed area
accessible via the Rohatang Pass. Melting of regional glaciers and deforestation led the list of
environmental impacts noted by the NGT, which identified the emission of black carbon from
vehicle traffic as a chief cause of the melting. In Environment Support Group v. Union of
India29 Cites a Supreme Court decision which described climate change/global warming as a
‘major threat to the environment’. In Wilfred J v. Ministry of Environment &
Forests30court provided for protection of ‘areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea
level consequent upon global warming’. In Punamchand v. Union of India31 The
Applicants filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at
Aurangabad, alleging that certain forest lands were being illegally diverted for non-forest
purposes, which would cause felling of trees to the extent of 2.5 to 3 lakhs and that would be
a great loss to the environment. By order dated October 1st, 2003, Division Bench of the
High Court, transferred the Writ Petition to this Tribunal in view of Judgment of the Apex

27
Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh App (c) 4601-02 of 1997
28
In re Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 1988 CriLJ 438
29
In Environment Support Group v. Union of India 1996 AIR 1446
30
In Wilfred J v. Ministry of Environment & Forests Appeal No. 14 of 2014 (NGT – Principal Bench)
31
In Punamchand v. Union of India App No. 10 (THC) of 2013

14
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

Court in the case of “Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Anr Vs Union of
India32”. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal gave the following directions: The
Respondent shall monitor plantation of adequate number of trees, as far as possible of 1:8
ratio and make serious endeavor to protect the plants to improve survival rate of the trees.
The projects shall be implemented peri pasu with the process of plantation, proper
maintenance, rearing, monitoring, watering and protecting of plants, to ensure that when the
projects are completed, the plants will be transformed as trees.
In Vimal Bhai v. Ministry of Environment & Forests33 considering the need for better
procedures in making sound evaluation of the forest land diversion proposals, following
options for cost benefit analysis shall be explored for future proposals:
a. the guidelines for cost benefit analysis may be updated/modified to provide clear
instructions regarding the various cost and benefit elements to be incorporated for the
purpose of arriving at cost benefit ratio; and
b. the cost benefit analysis for each proposal received for diversion of forest land shall be
done adopting the prescribed procedure.
In Jan Chetna v. Ministry of Environment & Forests Suits were filed against Governments
regarding construction of rod by cutting off trees, Environmental Assessment and Permitting:
Other Projects. Judiciary in various cases has pointed out the need

8. Conclusion
India is a non‐ Annex I country under the Kyoto Protocol and thus has no binding target for
emissions reduction. However, India is an active participant in the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) established by the Protocol. Indeed, it has more than 889 registered CDM
projects as of 10 September 2012.Rather than integrative binding legislation; India is
developing a policy process to specifically address climate change. India adopted a “National
Action Plan on Climate Change” (NAPCC) in 2008 outlining existing and future policies and
programmes directed at climate change mitigation and adaptation.
There has been major climate laws i.e. National Action Plan on Climate Change/2008 which
outlines eight “national missions” running until 2017. These include solar, energy efficiency,
sustainable habitat, Green India, water, Himalaya ecosystems, agriculture and strategic
knowledge of climate change. Sunita Narain, Director of Centre for Science and
Environment, in an editorial in Down to Earth (a science and environment fortnightly)

32
Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Anr Vs Union of India (2012) 8, SCC 326
33
In Vimal Bhai v. Ministry of Environment & Forests Appeal No. 5 of 2011,

15
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

mentioned that the plan asserts that India can grow differently because it is in an early stage
of development. In other words, it can leapfrog to a low carbon economy using high-end and
emerging technologies and by being different. Also, it prioritizes national action by setting
out eight missions - ranging from solar to climate research - which will be detailed and then
monitored by the pm0’s council for climate change. But, the plan is weak on how India sees
the rest of the world in this extraordinary crisis. Climate change is a global challenge. We did
not create it and, till date, we contribute little to global emissions. We are, in fact, climate
victims. As per Sudhirendar Sharma, a water expert and Director of the Delhi-based
Ecological Foundation, the plan report is a compilation of listless ideas that lack depth,
vision, and urgency. Putting economic development ahead of emission reduction targets, the
report makes a case for the right of emerging economies to pursue development and growth
to alleviate poverty without having to worry about the volume of atmospheric emissions they
generate in the process. Consequently, the report makes no commitment to cut the country's
carbon emission and thereby leaves it liable to criticism by those who hold worries about
global warming close to their chests.
Rahul Goswami, an independent journalist and researcher based in Goa, in his article stated
that instead of having a strongly articulated, clearly thought-through vision, the NAPCC has a
basket of eight "missions" and no durable plan that will include the poorest and most
vulnerable A policy that deals with a new set of circumstances and factors needs necessarily
to think differently. Climate change is not population control, not poverty, not rural
unemployment. It needs to learn differently from the experiences of contemporary
Indians. According to an article published in the Indian Express (an English daily), India has
decided to stick to the safe path on dealing with climate change. One of the main reasons for
taking this safe path is India's stance in multilateral negotiations. India has maintained that it
believes in "common and differentiated responsibility" and hence will wait for developed
countries to cap their emissions that are several times higher. Greenpeace regarded the focus
on solar energy as the highlight of the plan. The solar and renewable programs showed
foresight in energy planning and an intention to capitalize on the country's potential for solar
energy, said the organization. But Greenpeace, in a press release, also mentioned that on the
energy-efficiency front, the plan is both unambitious and vague about what the country is
setting out to achieve. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
(FICCI) have supported the plan, saying that eight missions will be important to leverage key
initiatives that industry and others are undertaking. The market-based mechanism for energy
efficiency across industry sectors will be a great driver for energy savings, according to the

16
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

FICCI. WWF-India feels that the National Action Plan is fairly comprehensive in its
coverage and has cross-sectoral links through the eight National Level Missions. At the
center stage of the Action Plan is India's impetus on following on a low carbon energy path
without impending economic growth and quality of life of people. WWF-India feels that the
Plan brings a balanced perspective on mitigation and adaptation through some new
dimensions. Creation of National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change is
another good initiative as this would ensure exchange of knowledge and informed research in
India. To conclude, it is now clear that initiatives to prevent climate change are started but,
most importantly, these initiatives must be continuous and sustainable and every individual of
every country will need to contribute to prevent climate change. [9] By releasing the NAPCC,
the government has shown India's commitment to address climate change issues and also sent
a positive message to the public, industries, and civil society about the government's concern
to address the climate change issue through concerted action. Issues related to the awareness
regarding global warming and climate change among the general population [10] and the issue
related to agriculture and health hazards due to climate change must be addressed strongly
and effectively.

17
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

Bibliography

A. Conventions
1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change( adopted on 9th May
19992 ,entered into force 21st march 1994)

2. The First World Climate Conference, World Meteorological Organization WMO,

held from12 February to 23 February 1979; Geneva, Switzerland.

3. The Second World Climate Conference, WMO, held from 29 October to 7 November
1990, Geneva Switzerland.

4. Kyoto Protocol ,United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ,adopted

on 11 December 1997 at COP3 in Kyoto, Japan

5. Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA), United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change, adopted on 25th November 1998 at COP4 in Buenos Aires,
Argentina

6. Bonn Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

,adopted on 5th July 2001 at COP6 in Bonn, Germany .

7. Marrakesh Accords, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

,adopted on November 2001 at COP7 in Marrakesh, Morocco

8. Montreal Conference, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

held from 28 November to10 December 2005, Montreal, Canada

9. UN Climate Change Conference of Bali , United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change, held from 3th to15 December 2007, Bali

10. Paris summit ,United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted on
December 2015 came into force February 2016 , Paris, France

18
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

B. Case Laws

1. Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622

2. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P 1989 AIR 594

3. Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat 1987 AIR 1073

4. Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh App (c) 4601-02 of 1997

5. In re Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 1988 CriLJ
438

6. In Environment Support Group v. Union of India 1996 AIR 1446

7. In Wilfred J v. Ministry of Environment & Forests Appeal No. 14 of 2014 (NGT –

Principal Bench)

8. In Punamchand v. Union of India App No. 10 (THC) of 2013

9. Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Anr Vs Union of India (2012) 8,
SCC 326

10. In Vimal Bhai v. Ministry of Environment & Forests Appeal No. 5 of 2011

C. STATUES AND ARTICLES

1. National Action Plan on Climate Change 2008 s vol 1 (Introduction to policy)(5)

2. The Finance Bill 2010-11 and the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010 s vol 6 (3)

3. Electricity Act 2003 s vol 55 (10)

4. Art 51, constitution of India, 1950

19
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

D. ARTICLES

1. Alex grey, “what is the Paris Agreement on climate change?”

< https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/what-is-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-
change/> assessed on 23 October 2017

2. Coral Davenport, Justin Gillis, Sewell Chan And Melissa Eddy, “Inside Paris
Summit”
< https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/un-climate-change-conference> assessed on 23
October 2017

3. Yogesh Saxena, “Environment protection ecological and climate change”

< http://envionmentclimatechanges.blogspot.in/2012/06/municipal-council-ratlam-vs-
vardhichand.html> assessed on 23 October 2017

4. Sharat Poornima, “Climate Change in India: Challenges and Solutions”

< http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article6130.html> assessed on 23 October 2017

5. Surbhi Jain, National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC)

<http://www.arthapedia.in/index.php?title=National_Action_Plan_on_Climate_Change_(
NAPCC) > assessed on 23 October 2017

6. Aditya Pratap, “A landmark judgment for environmental jurisprudence.”

< http://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/a-landmark-judgement-for-environmental-
jurisprudence-51772> assessed on 23 October 2017

7. Suchi Simtap, “The Dehradun Valley Litigation: Case Study”

< http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/the-dehradun-valley-litigation-996-
1.html> assessed on 23 October 2017

E. BOOKS

20
 BASICS OF LEGISLATION

1. A. K. Sahai, Climate Change: A Case Study Over India , in Theoretical and Applied
Climatology November 1998, Volume 61, Issue 1–2, pp 9–18

2. Basu, Durga Das Commentary on the Constitution of India Volume P, -Delhi:

Universal Book Traders, 1992.

3. Kagzi, M.C. Jain, the Constitutional of India Vol.1 & 2. -New Delhi: India Law House,
2001.

21