(..2..)

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENT AND POLLUTION

QUESTION BANK

Q.1. “India has a long tradition of protecting and worshipping nature”- Explain in the context of Dharma of the environment.

Q.2. In India, what is the traditional environment?

SHORT NOTES

1. Dharma of environmental protection.

SYNOPSIS

Environmental Jurisprudence in India: From Vedic Roots to Modern Judicial Activism-

I. Environmental Protection in Ancient India: Philosophical and Cultural Foundations-

i. The Five Primordial Elements (Pancha Mahabhutas)

ii. Sacred Flora and Fauna-

iii. Historical State Governance-

II. Environmental Exploitation and Legislation During the British Raj

1. The Shore Nuisance (Bombay and Kolaba) Act, 1853:

2. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:

3. The Indian Forest Act, 1865 & 1927:

4. The Indian Easements Act, 1882:

5. The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912:

III. Post-Independence Enactments and Constitutional Framework-

1. The Constitutional Bedrock

i. Article 48A (Directive Principles of State Policy):

ii. Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties):

iii. Article 21 (Right to Life):

2. Comprehensive Statutory Framework-

3. Landmark Environmental Case Law and Judicial Doctrines-

i. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,

ii. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 201 (Bichhri Village Case)

iii. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand,

iv. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,

v. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,

vi. M.C. Mehta v. Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries, AIR 1987 SC 965 (Oleum Gas Leak Case)

vii. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248 (Bhopal Gas Disaster Case)

Environmental Jurisprudence in India: From Vedic Roots to Modern Judicial Activism-

I. Environmental Protection in Ancient India: Philosophical and Cultural Foundations-

Living in harmony with nature was a core practice and immutable principle of the people of ancient India. It was regarded as the Sanatana Dharma (eternal duty) of every individual to protect the ecosystem, comprising plants, trees, the earth, the sky, air, water, and wildlife. Hindu scriptures—including the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, and Smritis—were conceived by sages and saints who drew deep inspiration from their natural surroundings. They placed immense importance on environmental preservation. Consequently, components of nature were deified and worshipped out of profound reverence.

i. The Five Primordial Elements (Pancha Mahabhutas)

Hindu scriptures explicitly directed humanity to respect the natural environment by conceptualizing the cosmos through the Pancha Mahabhutas (the five core elements): Prithvi (Earth), Apas (Water), Tejas (Fire), Vayu (Air), Akasha (Ether/Space) Numerous verses in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda are dedicated to honoring these elements. Because they were revered as divine manifestations, polluting or acting against them was explicitly categorized as a Papa (sin). For instance, the Manusmriti prescribed strict punishments for individuals who defiled water bodies or cut down green trees.

ii. Sacred Flora and Fauna-

Furthermore, many flowers and trees were historically associated with specific deities, recognizing both their spiritual and ecological importance (such as their medicinal value).

Flora (Tree/Flower)	Associated Deity / Figure	Spiritual & Ecological Context
*Lotus (Padma***)	Goddess Lakshmi	Symbol of purity, fertility, and aquatic ecosystems.
*Banyan (Vata***)	Lord Brahma / Trimurti	Represents eternal life; praised for its massive oxygen output and canopy shelter.
Ashoka	Gautama Buddha	Associated with love and fertility; central to Buddhist monastic gardens.
Kadamba	Lord Krishna	Celebrated in folklore; critical for conserving biodiversity in the Vrindavan region.
*Peepal (Asvattha***)	Lord Vishnu	Revered in the Bhagavad Gita; vital for its round-the-clock oxygen release.

Afforestation and the cultivation of groves (Panchavati) were actively encouraged as acts of supreme religious merit (Punya), while the destruction of forests was viewed as highly detrimental to the welfare of both humanity and the state. Comprehensive guidelines for environmental and health preservation can also be found in classical medical treatises like the Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita.

Similarly, protecting animals and birds was treated as a sacred duty. Hindu deities are traditionally depicted with specific animals or birds as their vahanas (mounts):

The Lion is the mount of Goddess Durga (representing power and apex wildlife conservation).

The Wild Goose/Swan is the mount of Lord Brahma.

The Elephant (Airavata) belongs to Indra (representing the protection of tropical megafauna).

The Bull (Nandi) belongs to Lord Shiva (reverence for domestic livestock).

The Rat belongs to Lord Ganesha.

The Swan belongs to Goddess Saraswati.

The Eagle (Garuda) belongs to Lord Vishnu.

Crucially, Ahimsa (non-violence)—the bedrock tenet of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism—extended protection to all living creatures. Emperor Ashoka’s Fifth Pillar Edict stands as one of history's earliest wildlife conservation laws, explicitly banning the slaughter of specific animal species and prohibiting the burning of forests.

iii. Historical State Governance-

Extensive principles on environmental governance are found in Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which mandated the appointment of a Kupadhyaksha (Superintendent of Forest Produce) to protect woodlands and penalize poachers. Centuries later, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj demonstrated profound respect for nature. In his famous royal edict (Agyapatra), he explicitly ordered his soldiers and officers not to cut down fruit-yielding trees (such as mango and jackfruit) for building naval vessels or fortresses. He mandated that only dead or less useful trees be used, and even then, only with the explicit permission of the owner. Shivaji Maharaj maintained that:

"Fruit-bearing trees should not be cut because a person plants and nurtures them like their own children for future generations. To cut them is to inflict sorrow upon the people."

Thus, India possesses a rich, unbroken tradition of ecological stewardship. These faiths have cast this responsibility as Dharma (righteous duty) upon their followers. Therefore, it is aptly noted that the cultures and religions of the world can provide a solid foundation for changing human attitudes toward preserving and conserving the environment.

II. Environmental Exploitation and Legislation During the British Raj

The British colonial administration did not enact comprehensive legislation specifically dedicated to environmental protection. Instead, colonial policy viewed natural resources primarily as commercial commodities to be extracted for imperial expansion—most notably timber for British railway lines and shipbuilding.

However, as industrialization and urbanization progressed, the colonial state enacted piecemeal laws to address localized pollution and public nuisances:

1. The Shore Nuisance (Bombay and Kolaba) Act, 1853:

One of the earliest legislative attempts to regulate water pollution by managing waste discharge in port areas.

2. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:

Incorporated specific criminal provisions to penalize public nuisances affecting public health and safety:

Section 277: Penalizes the fouling of water of a public spring or reservoir.

Section 278: Penalizes making the atmosphere noxious to health.

3. The Indian Forest Act, 1865 & 1927:

State-centric legislations designed to nationalize forest lands. While they curtailed the traditional forest rights of indigenous tribes, they established the legal definitions of "Reserved" and "Protected" forests.

4. The Indian Easements Act, 1882:

Formally recognized natural prescriptive rights. It protected a landowner’s right to enjoy pollution-free air and water, unaffected by neighboring properties.

5. The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912:

Enacted to regulate the commercial exploitation and hunting of wild species.

III. Post-Independence Enactments and Constitutional Framework-

Following independence, and heavily influenced by the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference), India completely overhauled its environmental legal framework.

1. The Constitutional Bedrock

The Indian Constitution is one of the few in the world that explicitly incorporates environmental protection. Through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the state introduced dual environmental obligations:

i. Article 48A (Directive Principles of State Policy):

Mandates that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country."

ii. Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties):

Casts a duty upon every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures."

iii. Article 21 (Right to Life):

Through dynamic judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court expanded the right to life to include the Right to a wholesome, pollution-free environment.

2. Comprehensive Statutory Framework-

Independent India has passed numerous specialized enactments aimed at environmental preservation, listed below in chronological order:

i. The Factories Act, 1948 (Regulates industrial waste, safety, and hazardous emissions within factories).

ii. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Regulates the environmental impact of mining operations).

iii. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (Controls radioactive waste management).

iv. The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Regulates agrochemical pollution).

v. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Provides the statutory backbone for protecting endangered species and creating National Parks).

vi. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 133 provides a summary remedy for conditional orders to remove public environmental nuisances).

vii. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Established the Central and State Pollution Control Boards).

viii. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Restricts the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes without Central Government approval).

ix. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Expanded Pollution Control Board mandates to monitor and mitigate ambient air pollution).

x. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (The "Umbrella Legislation" passed in the wake of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, granting the Central Government sweeping powers to coordinate state and federal environmental measures).

xi. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (Mandates compulsory insurance for industries handling hazardous substances to provide immediate relief to victims).

xii. The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 (An early mechanism for strict liability compensation).

xiii. The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (Established to hear appeals against industrial restrictions).

iv. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (Sets legal decibel limits for vehicular, industrial, and domestic zones).

xv. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 (Provides a national framework for managing man-made and natural environmental disasters).

xvi. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010 (A monumental structural upgrade that repealed the 1995 and 1997 Acts, establishing a specialized, fast-track environmental court composed of both judicial and scientific experts).

3. Landmark Environmental Case Law and Judicial Doctrines

Because statutory enforcement was often weak, the Supreme Court of India pioneered a robust regime of Environmental Jurisprudence through Public Interest Litigations (PILs). In doing so, the judiciary integrated several global environmental principles into municipal law.

i. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (Environmental Awareness Case)-

Facts: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to compel mass media and educational institutions to distribute information on environmental protection.

Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that public participation is vital for ecological survival. It issued mandamus directions to the Central Government to:

(1) Ensure compulsory broadcasting of environmental slides, documentaries, and messages in cinema halls and on television networks.

(2) Implement "Environment" as a mandatory subject across all schools, colleges, and universities nationwide.

ii. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (Bichhri Village Case)

Facts: Private chemical industries manufacturing H-acid in Bichhri Village, Rajasthan, discharged highly toxic, untreated chemical effluents directly onto the land. The sludge seeped into the ground, turning the local aquifer into toxic sludge and destroying the drinking water of multiple villages.

Held: The Supreme Court formally adopted the Polluter Pays Principle. The Court held that the financial costs of repairing environmental damage, restoring the soil, and compensating the affected villagers must be borne entirely by the offending industry, rather than the state or the public.

iii. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand,

Facts: Residents of Ratlam filed a complaint stating that the local municipality had failed to construct public latrines and control open, toxic drainage, causing a severe public health hazard. The municipality argued that a lack of financial resources prevented them from executing these tasks.

Held: Justice Krishna Iyer held that a lack of municipal funds is not an acceptable defense for failing to discharge mandatory statutory duties. Under Section 133 of the CrPC, the Court ordered the municipality to clear the public nuisance and build proper sanitation facilities under a strict, time-bound framework.

iv. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734 (Taj Trapezium Case)

Facts: Acid rain, generated by sulphur dioxide emissions from the Mathura Refinery, brick kilns, and foundries within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), began corroding and yellowing the white marble of the Taj Mahal.

Held: Incorporating the Precautionary Principle, the Supreme Court ruled that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The Court ordered 292 polluting industries inside the TTZ to either switch to cleaner natural gas fuel or immediately relocate outside the zone, prioritizing cultural heritage and ecology over corporate profits.

v. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (Ganga Pollution Cases)

Facts: A PIL was filed to halt the catastrophic pollution of the Ganga River by municipal sewage and industrial waste. The Court bifurcated the litigation into two major segments:

Mehta I (Tanneries): The Court ordered the immediate closure of leather tanneries at Jajmau near Kanpur that had failed to set up primary effluent treatment plants, holding that the health of the public and the river outweighs considerations of employment or revenue.

Mehta II (Municipalities): The Court reprimanded the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika for institutional neglect. It issued comprehensive directions mandating the setup of sewage treatment plants, ordering the relocation of urban dairies, and banning the disposal of corpses in the river.

vi. M.C. Mehta v. Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries, (Oleum Gas Leak Case)

Facts: In December 1985, during the pendency of a PIL to relocate a hazardous industrial complex from a densely populated area of Delhi, a catastrophic leak of oleum gas occurred, causing panic and one fatality.

Held: Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati declared that the 19th-century English common law rule of Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher)—which allowed several exceptions like an 'Act of God'—was wholly inadequate for a modern industrial society. The Court formulated the landmark indigenous doctrine of Absolute Liability:

Absolute Liability = Strict Liability - Exceptions

Where an enterprise engages in an inherently dangerous or hazardous industry, it owes an absolute, non-delegable duty to the community. If any harm escapes from such an activity, the enterprise is strictly liable to compensate all victims, and no exceptions or defenses are legally permissible.

vii. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (Bhopal Gas Disaster Case)

Facts: On the night of December 2–3, 1984, the world’s worst industrial disaster occurred when highly toxic Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from the Union Carbide India Ltd. plant in Bhopal, killing over 4,000 people instantly and permanently injuring hundreds of thousands.

Held: The litigation took a complicated turn due to cross-jurisdictional challenges in US and Indian courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court approved a mass overall settlement of 470 million USD paid by Union Carbide Corporation to the Central Government (acting on behalf of the victims via the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act, 1985). Consequently, the judicial principle of Absolute Liability developed in the Shriram case was not applied to its ultimate legal finality in this specific judgment, as the case concluded via a structured financial compromise rather than a standard trial verdict.

*****