The phrase ‘public law litigation’ was first prominently used by American academic Abram Chayes to describe the practice of lawyers or public spirited individuals who seek to precipitate social change through court-ordered decrees that reform legal rules, enforce existing laws and articulate public norms[1]. It is a litigation in which a person though not aggrieved personally, brings an action on behalf of the down trodden masses for the redressal of their grievances. This type of litigation is undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective and diffused rights, interest or vindicating public interest[2].

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has come to be associated with its own ‘people-friendly’ procedure. The foremost change came in the form of the dilution of the requirement of ‘locus standi’ for initiating proceedings. Since the intent was to ensure redressal to those who were otherwise too poor to move the courts or were unaware of their legal entitlements, the Court allowed actions to be brought on their behalf by social activists and lawyers[3].

The lack of legislative thinking and executive inaction on certain issues, brought the PIL at centre stage in providing relief to the voiceless poor people on various social issues. PIL has helped the tremendous growth of environmental jurisprudence in India. Public Interest Litigation has proved a boon for the common men and that’s why it is called “Social Action Litigation”.

Researcher has gone through a profound study before preparing this research paper and analyzed the major studies which have a close link with the objectives of the research of this study.It includes S.P. Sathe work on ‘Judicial Activism in India’, VG Shinde work on ‘Judicial contribution in enhancing environmental jurisprudence, H.N. Tripathi & S.N. Pandey (Commentaries on the Environment pollution control laws, Hari Law Agency, Allahabad 1992),Lal's [commentaries on water, air pollution and Environment (Protection) laws, law publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd].

Reasons for the Growth of PIL in Environmental Issues

Public Interest Litigation in India was initiated by a few of the Judges of the Supreme Court as a method to redress public grievances. In his definitive work on access jurisprudence, Mauro Capplletti has articulated the important transformation the concept of access has been undergoing[4]. In laissez faire society, “Access to justice” signified only the “formal right of an individual to litigate or defend the claim.” There was no concept of the need for affirmative state action to protect and create an environment conducive to the realization of justice. The focus today has shifted from a singularly neutral perspective of state action to the present dynamic activist concept of affirmative state action. This has been accompanied by a corresponding shift toward relieving “legal poverty”, which is the incapacity of many persons and segments of society to have their legal rights vindicated in the justice system[5].

The interpretation by the Indian Judiciary in favour of marginalized people while counting protection of environment as investment by the community live by the side of nature and entrepreneur has to share economic fruits with those communities as ecological balance contributed the industrial output also. Such strong ethical and legal backing provided by Indian Judiciary has modelled the whole Environment movement in India and now they are leading the world. Indian Environment jurisprudence shaped by and large by the Indian Judiciary within the Indian Constitution is major achievement after Stockholm conference. Many more things yet to be done and many strictures, comments and orders have yet to be followed by different governments in this country.

The failure of the state agencies to effectively enforce the environmental laws apart from non-compliance with statutory norms by the polluters resulted into further degradation of the environment which has affected the health of the people and forced the environmentalists and the residents of polluted areas as well as the non-governmental organizations to approach the judiciary, particularly the higher judiciary, for the suitable remedies. Of course the initiative for the protection of environment came from the legislature but the failure of the executive to implement the environmental laws in India created the ground for the intervention of the judiciary.

The judiciary made several attempt to resolve the conflict between the development and environment. The environmental jurisprudence in India developed through the instrument of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).Expensive Judicial Process, public spirited lawyers efforts paid in doing away with the outdated rules of locus standi. There has been recognition that the restrictive straitjacket of traditional rules of locus standi prevents the underprivileged and genuinely aggrieved persons from approaching the courts[6]. There has been a movement to simplify cumbersome legal procedures to bring justice to the doorstep of the ‘small man’. In India, in addition to substantial modification of locus standi, the traditional restrictive procedural laws have themselves been substantially changed. We have instances of judges reading a newspaper report of an injustice to an underprivileged citizen or group of citizens, and taking immediate action by treating it as a formal Petition to the Court. There have also been several cases of judges who have received letters from aggrieved individuals and treated them as substantive writ petitions so that justice can be done[7]. The Supreme Court observed that “the court is moved …by a member of the public by addressing a letter drawing the attention of the court to such legal injury or wrong. The court would cast aside all technical rules of procedure and entertain the letter as a writ petition on the original side and take action upon it[8].

Environment Protection through PILs

In the case of Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand[9] where the Municipal body of the city of Ratlam, had failed to perform its duty of ensuring establishment of a proper drainage system on the grounds of paucity of funds, the Supreme Court had introduced the concept of PIL for the first time and had observed that a responsible Municipal Council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health, cannot escape from its primary duty by pleading financial inability. Ever since then, the Indian Judiciary has been evolving old principles and formulating new ones to meet the need of the hour. A perfect example is the case of M. C. Mehta v. UOI[10] where an oleum gas leak at an industrial plant in the capital city of Delhi in the year 1985 had led to the death of a person and had raised serious health issues in the general populous. In this case, the Supreme Court had introduced the doctrine of ‘Absolute Liability’ on the user of hazardous material, thereby eroding the possibility of the offending party taking any defense to wriggle out of its accountability. This rule was evolved from the established principle of ‘strict liability’.

In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India, (Sariska BioReserve)[11], a distinguished NGO had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in the year 1991, regarding large scale mining activities illegally sanctioned by the State Government within the protected area that was steadily destroying the Tiger habitat and pushing them towards virtual extinction. The Supreme Court directed the constitution of a Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge, (Justice M.L. Jain) to prepare a list of the mines within the protected area and to ensure the enforcement of the notifications and the orders of the Court. It prohibited all mining activities in Sariska National Park and the area notified as a Tiger Reserve. In the year 1996, the Chief Justice of India established a permanent Forest Bench to deal with cases relating to environment and forest. In the year 2013, the Forest Bench was rechristened as the “Green Bench” and it continues to oversee matters relating to Sanctuaries and National parks as these matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal.

The Indian Judiciary has the unenviable task of drawing a fine balance between environmental concerns and competing demands of development that generates employment and adds to the national wealth. Keeping that in mind, in the case of Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & others[12], the Supreme Court had invoked the ‘polluters pay’ principle. Here, the untreated effluents of tanneries and industries were being directly discharged in river Palar that was the main source of water supply to the residents of the city of Vellore in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court held that the “absolute liability” principle for harm caused to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution, but also covers the cost of restoring environmental degradation.In the case of Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v. UOI, AIR 2007[13], in the year 2005, the petitioner had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court invoking the fundamental rights of a citizen as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and asking for intervention when a French ship ‘Clemenceau’ had posed a threat to the maritime environment at the Alang Shipbreaking Yard situated in the State of Gujarat. The Supreme Court responded by issuing a direction denying access to the ship to make port at the Alang Shipbreaking Yard for dismantling. Showing deep concern over the operation of ship breaking, the Court had asked for recommendations from a Committee of technical experts constituted by it. Directions were also issued to the Government of India to enact a legislation on this aspect, and as an interim measure, the court had laid down a set of guidelines to be followed in order to mitigate the harm caused to the environment by this activity that included decontamination of the ship prior to its breaking and classification of the waste generated by the shipbreaking process into hazardous and nonhazardous categories. In the case of Him Privesh Environment Protection Society Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary Industries and Ors[14]., in the year 2010 petitions were filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the setting up of a Cement Plant by an Industrial House in District Solan, H.P. alleging that the cement plant had been set up in total violation of the environment laws, especially the EIA Notifications. The plant had demolished a good part of the forest area and taken lands from nearby villages without a proper public hearing. Conscious of the fact that passing of a closure or demolition order in respect of the cement plant would cause immense hardship and adversely impact the livelihood of thousands of innocent citizens, the High Court had invoked the principle of “polluter pays” and imposed damages on the Cement Plant owner to the tune of Rs.100 crores, i.e., 25% of the total cost of the project. The aforesaid decision was challenged by the Cement Plant owner before the Supreme Court but the appeal was dismissed in the year 2013.

Importance of PILs in Environment Protection

The research work has highlighted the role of PILs in imparting environmental justice as follows:

1. Ensuring Compliance with Environmental Laws: PILs are used to hold governments and industries accountable for complying with environmental laws and regulations. Through PILs, citizens have challenged the government's failure to enforce environmental laws and regulations, or hold industries accountable for violating environmental standards.

2. Raising Awareness: PILs played important role in raising awareness about environmental issues and to educate the public about the need for environmental protection. By bringing environmental issues to the forefront of public attention, PILs can create pressure on governments and industries to take action to protect the environment.

3. Providing a Voice for the Marginalized: PILs has provided a voice to the marginalized communities who are often disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. Environmental PILs are used to advocate for the rights of marginalized communities, who may not have the resources or power to challenge powerful industries or governments on their own.

4. Promoting Public Participation: PILs has promoted public participation in environmental decision-making. By providing a platform for citizens to engage with the legal system and participate in environmental decision-making, PILs helped to ensure that the public's interests are taken into account in environmental policy-making.

Overall, PILs turned be a powerful tool for promoting environmental justice and ensuring that the environment is protected for the benefit of all. By providing a means for citizens to hold governments and industries accountable, raise awareness, advocate for marginalized communities, and promote public participation, PILs can help to create a more just and sustainable world.

1.  See: Abram Chaves, ‘The role of the judge in Public Law litigation’, 89 Harvard Law Review 1281 (May 1976)

2.  Hurra, Sonia: Public Interest Litigation 1993 at p 4

3. See: Susman, Susan D., ‘Distant voices in the Courts of India: Transformation of standing in Public Interest Litigation’, 13 Wisconsin International Law Journal 57 (Fall 1994)

4. See, Capplletti Mauro and Garth, B. (eds.), Access to Justice, Volume VII (1979)

5.  See, Capplletti Mauro and Garth, B. (eds.), Access to Justice, Volume VII (1979)

6. See, S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 p. 189 and Bandha Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802

7.  In PUDR v. Union of India,AIR 1982 SC 1473, 1483

8. Supra 516 pp 195,196

9. Municipal Council Ratlam V Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622

10.  M. C. Mehta v. UOI,(AIR 1987 SC 1086)

11. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India, (Sariska BioReserve) (AIR 1992 SC 514 and AIR 1993 SC 293)

12. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & others,(AIR 1996 (5) SCC 647

13. Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v. UOI, AIR 2007 (8) SCC 583 [13]

14. See Him Privesh Environment Protection Society & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP No. 586 of 2010 and CWPIL No. 15 of 2009, High Court of Himachal Pradesh

15. Here, we merely provide an overview of some of the potential weaknesses of PIL, as identified in the literature generally. Specific problems with PIL relating to environmental pollution cases will be further discussed in Section VII infra.

16. Morcha v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 802. See also DIVAN & ROSENCRANZ, supra note 12, at 150-51.

17. AIR 2000 GAUHATI 33 ::(2000) 1 Gau LR 242