AUTHOR: SNEHA JOON, IILM, UNIVERSITY

Climate change is having an impact on several vulnerable groups in India as well as in different parts of the world. Its aim is to see that everyone is addressed appropriately as climate-related concerns are dealt with. Article 21 of the Indian constitution which focuses on the right to life, has been interpreted to mean that everyone has the right to a healthy environment. The latest decisions are examined, showing that climate justice has become a part of India’s law. It examines important judgments of the Supreme Court and looks at how the Paris Agreement and other international agreements guide decisions inside the country. The role of laws such as the Environment Protection Act is also discussed, as well as the role of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the paper. Still, making sure developers comply with rules can be a struggle, there are worries about the environment where development occurs and not everyone is familiar with these issues. It suggests that climate justice be made a legal right in the constitution by citing the case taken by the in the Netherlands. Since India is industrialising and urbanising very rapidly, the issue of environmental justice matters a lot. Environmental justice in India is brought about by decisions and law changes made by the Indian judiciary. It considers the way Indian courts have assisted environmental justice by clarifying the problems linked to enforcing environmental laws, the improvements occurring in environmental legislation and the need to prevent environmental damage while focusing on development.

KEYWORDS: Indian Judiciary, the Right to Environment, Judicial Activism, Ecological Protection, the Right to Life and important Constitutional Provisions. 

The environment and human lives are changed by the serious global challenge of climate change. Due to the big income gap in India, climate change results in new hardships by threatening income, making poverty more common and risking people’s civil rights. Fighting this issue centres on climate justice which ensures that both the challenges of climate change and the benefits of battling them are shared by all. It involves human rights, fairness and environmental care, since climate change hits poorer communities the hardest, although they often do not cause it. Now, climate justice and human rights are part of the Indian legal system and the Indian Constitution helps this area grow. According to Article 21 which gives a right to life, the right has been complemented by giving it another aspect, meaningful rights to a healthy and clean environment. The decisions of the court have significantly influenced India's environmental law, establishing a trajectory for climate justice that intertwines law with defending the environment. Environmental justice guarantees that environmental policies and legislation do not discriminate against people because of their race, ethnicity or economic situation. 

This says that everyone ought to be in a position to reside in an environment that doesn't affect their health. Since India has many different environments and social and economic conditions, caring about environmental justice is now very important. Urban growth often means less healthy environments and fewer resources which especially affects less fortunate groups. 

Little money and Indigenous people are frequently the worst hit by environmental hazards, making things even more unfair for them. Life on earth depends on the environment, including water, air and soil which also decide whether humanity and its activities will exist, grow and improve. The idea of ecological conservation and protection isn't new. It's been a part of many ancient societies. Ancient India literature emphasizes that it is the dharma of all the people in the society to safeguard nature and the word 'nature' encompasses land, water, trees and animals which are immensely valuable to us. In the 'Atharva Veda', the ancient Hindu Scepters said "What of thee I dig out let that quickly grow over". 

In addition, new inventions including thermal power or atomic plants, are putting the environment in danger and their side effects result in global warming, climate change and acid rain. Besides, based on the pattern of the Indian legislature to enact a lot of legislations as compared to working on the cause of failure and disillusionment, enacting new bills regularly is similar to 'old wine in a new bottle'. Because of these facts, there is now a need to thoroughly examine how the environment can be better protected. It has been noted lately that the higher courts have been emphasising their role in defining and monitoring policies for pollution control, forests and wildlife. The majority of these judicial interventions have been brought about by the executive agencies' persistent inability to make policies and their lack of capacity-building. Environmental issues are frequently addressed through the employment of instruments like Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which has both proponents and opponents.

The term "environment" encompasses all of the things that surround us, including the air, space, land, water, plants, and animals. It is literally the culmination of every external factor influencing the life and development of an organism. It is literally the sum of all the external conditions and influences on an organism's life and growth. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, defines the environment as water, air, and land, and also the relationship among these and among them and between these and human beings, other living organisms, plants, micro-organisms, and property. Hence, the environment is vital for our existence and includes the physical environment in which we live.

There are highly explicit measures for protecting the environment in the Indian Constitution, which is unique in the world. It requires the right to life as a basic right, which has been interpreted to encompass the right to a clean and healthy environment.

The historic judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) established a precedent for understanding the right to life in excess of mere physical existence.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) also strengthened this interpretation to the effect that the right to life encompasses the right to have pollution-free air and water for complete enjoyment of life. This liberal interpretation of Article 21 has had several judgments confirming that environmental degradation poses a direct threat to the right to life.

The courts have highlighted the protection of environmental rights as being inherent to personal dignity and well-being, projecting the protection of the environment as a constitutional imperative.

1.Article 48A

Article 48A of the Constitution vows to take care of and preserve the environment, along with the forests and creatures living in them. The Directive Principles of State Policy describe this provision, saying that caring for the environment means more than complying with rules and should include taking further actions to keep the environment in balance. Courts have stressed the significance of Article 48A by frequently using it to check that the government takes care of its environmental duties. Rulings like M.C. Mehta v. The Indian Supreme Court (1986) has ruled that it is the state's duty to design and enforce policies that manage ecological problems. Because of Article 48A, the judiciary guides the government to act mindfully toward the environment in areas like industry, village development, agriculture and cities. Because of this commitment, there is now a better understanding of sustainable development and policies are working toward better protection of the environment together with supportive economic growth. Making decisions related to climate change, biodiversity loss and public health have come up in interpretations of Article 48A in courts. Courts have noted that environmental factors play a role in people’s health which is why they consider environmental rights vital parts of the Constitution’s fundamental rights. Court judgments have led the government to start afforestation projects, develop wildlife conservation policies and control pollution, due to the requirements set out in Article 48A. Cases including M.C. Mehta v. The Indian government recognizes public interest litigations (PILs) as necessary for cleaning up the environment and ensuring the government is held responsible. It gives people the chance to participate in caring for the environment by claiming justice through the courts when government actions break environmental regulations or the constitution. 

2.ARTICLE 51A(g) 

Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India places a priority on citizens' duty in environmental conservation. It says that every person should look after the environment, especially wildlife, lakes, rivers and forests and be kind to all living creatures. This article puts special focus on raising environmental awareness and on citizens' participation in attaining sustainability. It acts as a balancer for the requirements of the state, using cooperation for environmental policies. The Indian Constitution's inclusion of Article 51A(g) shows a visionary appreciation of environmental responsibility and rights in a democratic framework. It centres around caring for nature and combines how individuals act with what’s best for society. The main point is that we should look after ecosystems now and in the future by inspiring stewardship. By promoting citizen participation in environmental conservation and highlighting the obligations related to environmental rights, the Indian judiciary has made a substantial contribution to the development of Article 51A(g), thereby enhancing the cooperative relationship between the people and the government.

India has both legal remedies within the legislation and common law remedies for environmental protection. 

Tort law allows the remedy of trespass, nuisance, strict liability and negligence. One of these remedies is called Citizen’s suit, e.g. this work falls within the category of Section 19 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 something described in area 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. and any action falling under Section 268 is covered by open irritation under the Indian Penal Code,1860 Besides the above, it is possible to file a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court or under Article 226 in a High Court.

1.Tortious liability

The Indian system of law provides the following ways to help persons with torts:

• Damage

Exceptionally, in the Shriram Gas Leak case, Oleum gas was leaked, causing harm to Delhi citizens and its environment; the Apex court ruled that the damages should match how much the polluter is able to pay. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not apply this test in the case known as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

• Injunction

An injunction is meant to prevent any more harm from happening. Sec.37 to 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, direct how perpetual injunction is handled.

2.Nuisance

Nuisance happens when someone’s enjoyment is interfered with because of smell, air, noise and so on. Stephen explains that any act done to hurt or bother another person’s lands or buildings is called nuisance.

Nuisance can be assigned to two main types of categories.

• Private Nuisance – It happens when one’s land is seriously and unreasonably affected by something. It means doing something that interferes with a right common to many people.

• Trespass- It includes actions that deliberately or unintentionally break someone’s right to personal or property ownership without acceptable legal reasons. These two things must occur for trespass to happen:

1) Someone must cause intentional or negligent harm to personal or property rights for there to be a tort.

2) You have to involve your rights personally or directly; consequences far removed from your act do not count as an interference.

3.Negligence

It means failing to act like a reasonably prudent person would in similar situations.

4.Strict Liability

The principle stated in Rylands v. Fletcher by Blackburn J. is that the one who for his own ends brings onto his ground and gathers and stores there anything which is likely to be a nuisance, if it gets out, shall retain it as its risk, and if he fails to do so is prima facie although, he shall be responsible for all the harm which is the natural result of its escape. The strict liability doctrine has great applicability in the case of environmental pollution particularly cases involving damage due to leakage of harmful substances.

The Indian Supreme Court has recognised that a balance is needed among society, economy and environment and has therefore promoted the ideas of sustainable development. Because of industrial and information growth spreading worldwide, the concept has acquired more importance in the twenty-first century. It is recognised by the court that the United Nations Conference on Human Environment and the Stockholm Conference of 1972 contributed greatly to the inclusion of sustainable development in Customary International Law. Some of the principles include inter-generational equity, meaning development must be fair to the present and future and the Precautionary Principle which encourages nations to take actions to preserve the environment. It has been established in the court that polluters should pay for the damages they bring, balancing the needs of the public, foreign trade and investment. Such steps motivate international harmonisation of fees for pollution and encourage the use of economic tools to hold polluters accountable. The court's adherence to sustainable development and conservation of the environment reflects its adherence to responsible action and accountability.

1.The Doctrine of Absolute Liability

In the historic decision case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India . In the Union of India, the Supreme Court of India proposed the idea of unlimited liability. Therefore, if a business carries out activities that are inherently dangerous, it is fully accountable for any accidents or injuries happening during those activities.

2.Polluter Pays Principle

People are now more aware of the polluter pays principle since the last few years. The rule is that a person or business is responsible for paying to address pollution they cause and for cleaning it up. Instead of blaming people for mistakes, this principle says that the members of society who harm the environment must pay for the harm caused. It follows the aim of strengthening compensation for environmental injuries. The Supreme Court of India, in Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. The Union of India recognised the polluter pays principle as necessary for sustainable development.

3.Precautionary Principle

Part of the Vellore Citizens Forum case, the Indian Supreme Court pointed out three key factors in applying the precautionary principle. It is best to begin environmental actions to predict, tackle and address the reasons behind environmental harm. In addition, if there is not enough scientific information, that should not prevent urgent action to avoid harm. Finally, it is up to the party engaging in an activity to show its favourable effects. When there is a potential risk to nature, these are the rules experts rely on in making their decisions.

4.Public Trust Doctrine

Water, air, sea and forests are considered under the Public Trust Doctrine to be resources so important to all that they are not to be privately owned. In the matter of M.C. Mehta v. The Supreme Court stated that Kamal Nath and Others The Public Trust Doctrine is firmly integrated within the laws of the country. Under this doctrine, these resources are looked after and managed for the benefit of the public.

5.Doctrine of Sustainable Development

The idea of sustainable development was emphasized by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in its report, more famously referred to as the Brundtland Report. When something is done for sustainable development, the needs of people now are met without damaging the possibilities for people in the future. It is important for the judiciary to help balance development and caring for the environment. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. UP (Union of Pan-Asia)The court stated that natural resources should be viewed as permanent possessions of humans and must be conserved across all generations. The Supreme Court, in the Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum case, acknowledged sustainable development as a feasible principle in eliminating poverty and enhancing human life without exceeding the ecological carrying capacity.

Some landmark judgements show that the judiciary helps to protect the environment by, among other things. 

(A)The Right to A Wholesome Environment 

In Charan Lal Sahu, the Supreme Court said that Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to an unpolluted environment. In the case of Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corporation Hyderabad, the court employed Constitutional provisions under Articles 48A and 51A(g) to hold that pollution of the environment would be violative of the fundamental right to life and liberty of person in Article 21. 

(B)Public Nuisance:

 The Judicial Response In the case of Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand, the top court’s ruling emphasised that just laws support social justice. The court made sure that statutory authorities fulfilled their responsibilities to get rid of public nuisance and keep the environment clear of pollution, regardless of how much it would cost. The case also accepted Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a constitutional mandate of the courts. 

(C)Judicial Relief Includes Compensation To Victims

 In the Delhi gas leak case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), the Supreme Court laid down two significant principles of law. The court first made it possible for it to issue legal remedies, for example compensation, if fundamental rights such as Article 21, had been violated. Second, it laid down the principle of "no fault" liability (absolute liability) for hazardous industrial activities, which has had a major effect on Indian laws relating to liability and compensation.

(D) Basic Right to Water

The basic right to water in India has developed through judicial jurisprudence. In the Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court recognized that water is a basic requirement of human sustenance and an implied component of the right to life, human rights, the right to a healthy environment and sustainable development as interpreted under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Because of PIL, more people can seek justice related to the environment and those with less power are more heard. Because of decisions from the Supreme Court, individuals or groups with real concerns about the environment can now take their cases to the court. NGOs and activists all take part in PIL, starting environmental lawsuits and informing people about environmental matters. Such initiative helps the courts manage complex science and technology cases. NGOs’ PILs are often heard by the Supreme Court, as it recognises their help in raising awareness about environmental concerns. Uniting the judiciary, civil society and government through this interaction, it is highlighted that being involved in decision-making matters when solving ecological issues. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum versus the Union of India is one major action made by NGOs. Union of India and M.C. Mehta v. Show how civil society uses pressure on the government and companies to keep strict environmental regulations.

Creating a secure future for generations is achieved by having discussions among judicial activism, active public participation and cultural values present in the constitution. The environment being recognised as a human right in India is reflected in earlier lawsuits decided by the courts. Because of the strong support of the courts for environmental laws, there is now a balance between building a country and protecting the environment. Even so, there are still difficulties with how people understand criminal justice, how authorities perform their duties and how laws are applied. Change in environmental justice in India will only come if the government, courts and people work as a team. Recognising climate justice as a part of human rights in the constitution marks a major change in Indians’ perspective on how humans relate to their environment.

1.Cases

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).

• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 (India).

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 (India).

• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 388 (India).

• Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622 (India).

• Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 (India).

• Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corp. of Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171 (India).

• Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1985 SCR (3) 169 (India).

• Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715 (India).

• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 (India).

• Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248 (India).

2.Statutes

• The Constitution of India.

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).

• Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

• Specific Relief Act, 1963, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1963 (India).

4.International Agreements & Reports

• Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1972).

• Brundtland Commission, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (1987).

• Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.