Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2508852

1

Evolution of Environmental Policy and Law in India

Saumya Umashankar

Abstract – The paper examines the evolution of environmental

policy and law in India and the dominant influences that defined the

course of policy. It identifies four distinct phases– the colonial and

immediate post-colonial phase, the second phase commencing from

the UN Conference on Human Environment in 1972, the Bhopal Gas

leak disaster marking the milestone for the third phase and judicial

activism extending over two decades as the fourth phase. In the

initial colonial and post-colonial phase, environment policy was

centered around State rights over forests and usage of forest produce.

The dominant themes were revenue accretion and usage of forest

products to fulfil development needs specifically in the spread of the

railways and communication network. The post-colonial phase

immediately after Independence in 1947 did not see a significant

shift from the colonial period. The UN Conference on Human

Environment in 1972 marked a significant milestone that changed the

course of environment policy forever. The presence and participation

of the Prime Minister of India in the Conference deliberations

brought an immediate response in Government’s focus towards

conservation actions. The period from 1972 to 1980 saw a large

number of legislations being enacted. The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster

was a defining movement in India’s environmental history. The

inadequacy of the governance structure in prevention of the disaster,

the inability of legal and administrative processes to deliver adequate

compensation to the affected people and stirring of public

consciousness about the threats posed by environmental negligence

came together to reshape environmental policy. A chemical leak

incident in the national capital shortly after the Bhopal disaster and

the death of a practising advocate in the incident became the trigger

for judicial involvement in environmental matters. The source of

policy developments in environment decisively shifted from an

elected political executive to an unelected judiciary. International

debates on climate change in recent years and commitments to

abatement measures appeared only at the fringes of policy

discussions. The paper narrates the progression of environment

policy and law in India in each of these phases.

Keywords – Environmental Policy and Law, Forestry policy,

Bhopal Gas Leak tragedy, Judicial Activism in environmental

matters, Supreme Court of India.

I. INTRODUCTION

India is a large country with a high population density. It is

a developing country, with comparatively low per capita

incomes and a recent legacy of colonial rule. It is a strong,

vibrant, multi-party democracy with an independent judiciary

and open media. The conflict between conservation of the

environment and socio-economic growth has been much

debated and discussed.

It is generally postulated that a thrust for preservation of

the environment imposes costs that a developing country is

unwilling to bear. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)

framework postulates an inverted U-shaped relationship

between environmental pollution and per capita income [1]. It

argues that the inverted U-relationship is a combination of

three factors – the scale effect which suggests an increase in

pollution when an economy grows, the composition effect

referring to structural changes in the economy consequent to

growth over years and its long-term environmental effects and

the technology effect which posits a reduction in emission due

to technological advances from long-term growth. The EKC

framework’s assumption is that poorer nations are less willing

to channel resources to promote a cleaner environment. Public

discourse in a developing country would value economic

growth and employment over the environment. Democratic

institutions reflecting the public discourse would, therefore,

subordinate environmental conservation at the altar of

economic progress.

Environmental policy of a country is also determined by

international actors – either through trade conditions pushed

by public pressure of the trading partner or through

international covenants. Though the international community

has not arrived at a consensus on binding instrument setting

out rights and duties on environmental matters as in the case

of human rights and trade, moral obligations of nations arrived

at in international summits have been an influence in

determining the course of domestic environmental policy.

The UN Conference on Human Environment in 1972, the

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone layer

in 1987, the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the Kyoto Protocol on

Climate Change in 1997 and the Bali Roadmap to the UN

Framework on Climate Change in 2007 have been important

milestones in the evolution of international environmental

policy. Their stimulus in defining national policy trends needs

to be evaluated

Environmental disasters have had a role to play in

awakening the national consciousness on the need for a green

policy. The Bhopal Gas Leak tragedy in 1984, the Chernobyl

nuclear accident in 1986, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989

and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 are prominent

instances than come to mind.

The paper attempts to study the evolution of environmental

policy and law and understand the dominant influences that

have defined the course of policy-making. It identifies four

distinct phases along the path – the colonial and immediate

post-colonial phase, the second phase commencing from the

UN Conference on Human Environment in 1972, the Bhopal

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2508852

2

Gas Leak disaster marking the milestone for the third phase

and judicial activism extending over two decades marking the

fourth phase. The paper narrates the progression of

environment policy and law in India in each of these phases

and the dominant influences in each phase – people’s

movements, environmental disasters, international covenants

and judicial interventions.

II. FOREST POLICY IN COLONIAL INDIA

In early colonial times, forests where viewed as assets

under State ownership. The commercial potential of timber

and other forest produce drew the interest of the colonial

administrators. Forest policies were driven by wood

requirements to meet the expansion needs of the railways and

telegraph [2]. The arrival of Dietrich Brandis represents a

landmark in Indian forest and environment policy. Mr.

Brandis was appointed as Superintendent of Pegu Forests in

1856. At that time, Burma was the focal point supply of teak

and timber. Mr. Brandis’ work in reducing resistance to State

ownership of forest areas in Pegu (Burma) and establishing

conservancies for managed teak farm areas, earned him an

appointment as the first Inspector General of Forests in British

India in 1864. He pioneered the first environment-related

legislation in India, the Forest Act of 1865. The Forest Act

consolidated the power of the State to acquire exclusive

control over designated forest areas. Any land covered by

trees could be notified as a “Government forest” establishing

the property right of the State and granting it power to control

ingress and egress. However, the State was required to pay

heed to customary usage rights of local people prior to

notification. The forest administration obtained legal sanction

to manage forest areas. The lack of capacity of local people in

articulation of their customary rights ensured that the

provision remained on paper. The Forest Act of 1878 rewrote

the provisions of the earlier legislation by consolidating the

power of the State over forest land. The Act classified forests

into “reserved forests” and “protected forests”. Protected

forests were left to the absolute control of the forest

administration whereas in reserved forests, local communities

were granted limited usufruct access as concessions by the

State. The State could commercially exploit resources in

reserved forests. The opposition from private owners of

timber plantations, principally in Madras Presidency, led to a

re-writing of the law and the passage of the Madras Forest Act

of 1882 which recognised private forests and vested property

rights over the forests with owners of forest plantations.

The Forest Policy of 1894, the first policy initiative, drew

its inspiration from a monogram of Dr Voelcker on the

“Improvement of Indian Agriculture” which had a special

chapter on forestry [2]. The objective of the policy

emphasised maximisation of revenue from commercial forests

and laid the framework for administration of forests for

State’s benefit. The Policy categorized forests as preservation

forests, commercial forests, minor forests and pasturelands

[3]. Preservation forests included those forests which were

essential for environmental purposes; commercial forests were

earmarked for exploitation for timber and other forest

products. Pasture lands satisfied the needs of local people for

fuel wood, small timber and fodder, essential to keep local

communities from foraying into commercial forests. The

privileges of local communities living in the proximity of

forests were restricted on grounds of ostensible public benefit.

The Indian Forest Act of 1927 replaced the earlier 1878

Act. By that time, Indianisation of forest administration had

gathered strength. The implementation of the Montague-

Chelmsford reforms by the British Government in 1921

placed the subject of forests under the nominal control of

elected legislatures in provinces. The Act of 1927 continued

with all the major provisions, extending it to levies on timber

[3]. The preamble of the Act stated that it sought to

consolidate the law relating to the transit of forest produce and

the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce. There

was a clear and continued emphasis on the revenue-yielding

aspect of forests

III. FOREST POLICY IN POST-COLONIAL INDIA

(1947-1972)

The environmental agenda in the immediate post-colonial

phase continued to centre on forestry. The National Forest

Policy of 1952 continued with the framework of the 1894

Policy but recalibrated the use of commercial forests for

meeting paramount national developmental needs – defence,

communications and industry [4]. Revenue maximisation

became subordinate to development requirements. The Policy

classified forests into protected forests –where no activity was

permitted, national forests for meeting development needs,

village forests and tree lands. Independent India laid great

emphasis on plantation of trees by citizens. The Vana

Mahotsava (Tree Festival) programme, started in 1948, was

built into the Policy of 1952. Tree lands were specified areas

where fast-growing tree plantations were encouraged to meet

local fuel needs, “making available to cultivators a suitable

fuel in place of cow-dung now burnt for fuel and thus help

release the latter for its utilisation as manure for increasing

agricultural production” [2]. These tree lands were outside the

scope of forest management. The Policy sanctified land

designated as forests. According to the policy, the rights and

interests of future generations should not be subordinated to

the imprudence of the present generation. Indiscriminate

extension of agriculture and consequent destruction of forests

has not only deprived the local population of fuel and timber

but has also stripped the land of its natural defences against

erosion. Therefore, the Policy of 1952 advocated

complementary land use under which each type of land was

set aside for use in which it would produce the most and

deteriorate the least. Although the Policy emphasised the

checking of river erosion and denudation of mountains

amongst its objectives, these were not acted upon in any

significant measure. Nation building through investment in

industrialisation, agriculture and infrastructure occupied

3

centre-stage and environment conservation through forest

preservation were at the fringes of attention.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: STOCKHOLM AND

THE FLURRY OF LAWS (1972-1980s)

The United Nations Conference on Human Environment

marked a milestone in the evolution of environmental policy-

making in India. The Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira

Gandhi, was the only head of Government to address the

Conference in Stockholm other than the Swedish Prime

Minister1. The Conference proclaimed that under-

development in developing countries was the source of

environmental problems and laid out 26 principles calling

“upon Governments and peoples to exert common efforts for

the preservation and improvement of the human environment,

for the benefit of all the people and for their posterity” [5].

The Government of India embraced the declaratory principles

of the UN Conference whole-heartedly and refashioned

environmental policy through a flurry of legislative and

administrative activity. The Wildlife (Protection) Act passed

by Parliament in September, 19722, was the first in a series of

such legislations. The Act was notable in that Parliament

exercised its over-riding powers under the Constitution to

legislate on a subject assigned to the States. The Act continues

to form the cornerstone for wildlife conservation efforts.

Hunting or destruction of species described in the Schedule to

the Act was outlawed. A licensing procedure for game hunting

of permitted species was set out. Mechanism for declaration of

sanctuaries and National Parks for protection of wildlife living

in the designated areas was specified with elaborate

machinery for enforcement [8].

The first census of the tiger population was conducted in

1972. The tiger population was estimated at an alarmingly low

number of 18273. The Wildlife (Protection) Act notified in

1972 had defined the tiger as a protected wildlife species. The

data on tiger population estimates raised alarm bells and a

tiger task force was constituted. Project Tiger was born out of

the recommendations of the Task Force [9]. Nine tiger

reserves were established to protect the natural habitat of the

tiger. Thus the age of species conservation struck root in

India.

The next in the succession of legislative action was the

enactment of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Act in 19744. This legislation too was enacted by the

1 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_the_Human_En

vironment on April 19, 2014. 2 The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, retrieved from

http://indiacode.nic.in/fullact1.asp?tfnm=197253 on April 20, 2014. 3 The Tiger in India, National Tiger Conservation Authority, retrieved from

http://envfor.nic.in/downloads/public-information/NTCA-booklet.pdf on June

14, 2014. 4 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, retrieved from

http://indiacode.nic.in/fullact1.asp?tfnm=197406 on April 20, 2014.

appropriation of States’ law-making powers on the subject of

water by Parliament. Pollution of water bodies and discharge

of untreated industrial effluent was sought to be prevented

through the law. The Act was comprehensive in its coverage

of water bodies to include rivers, streams, sea, tidal water,

wells and inland water bodies whether natural or artificial.

The Central Pollution Control Board was created along with

State Boards for granting permissions and enforcement. No

industry, operation or process and no treatment and disposal

of effluent or sewage could be established without obtaining a

consent order from the concerned Board. The Board was

empowered to set standards for desirable levels of discharge

and specify conditions for release of effluents. The Board

could take recourse to emergency powers where, due to an

accident or unforeseen act or for any other reason, noxious

substances were found to have been released into water

bodies. Preventive powers were also available in case of

apprehension of pollution [7].

The flurry of action did not leave the Constitution

untouched. The Constitution was amended through the 42nd

Amendment in 19765 introducing Article 48A in the Directive

Principles of State Policy, stating that the protection and

improvement of the environment and safeguarding forests and

wildlife would be a guiding principle fundamental in the

governance of the country. Although the Constitution

specifically forbade the enforceability of the Directive

Principles by any court, Article 48A was read into the right to

life guaranteed under Article 21 as a fundamental right of

every citizen by the Courts, laying the ground for judicial

activism in environment matters in later years. The

Amendment transferred the subject of “forests” and the

“protection of wild animals and birds” from the legislative

jurisdiction of State Legislatures to the Concurrent List,

granting Parliament concurrent powers to enact laws on these

subjects. The 42nd

Amendment also incorporated Article 51A

in the chapter on Fundamental Duties, requiring every citizen

to protect and improve the natural environment. The 42nd

Amendment effectively shifted the locus of administrative

action towards the Union, making the States subordinate to the

Union in the field of environment conservation.

The first truly people-led environmental conservation

movement, Chipko (literally “hugging” in Hindi), came to

attention in 1973 when a group of women in Mandal village,

in the hilly tracts of Northern India, embraced trees to prevent

loggers from cutting them. In 1974, an especially notable

confrontation occurred in Reni, where a women’s group

placed themselves between the trees and an army of

lumberjacks, singing ballads of tree protection and

environmental conservation [10]. The non-violent method

adopted by village women caught the imagination of people

across the country and outside. Over the decade, several such

confrontations received attention, spurring people’s

involvement in preservation of the environment.

5 http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend42.htm

4

The return of the government led by Mrs Indira Gandhi in

the general elections of 1979 brought the environment back

into focus [11]. Inspired by the Chipko movement, Mrs

Gandhi constituted a committee in January 1980, headed by

Narayan Dutt Tiwari, who came from the same hilly tracts and

who had served as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, to

review existing environmental laws and recommend suitable

administrative machinery for environmental protection. The

Tiwari Committee recommended the creation of a Department

of Environment in the Union Government and a relook at

some of the existing laws. Later that year, Parliament passed

the Forest (Conservation) Act6 tightening the control of the

Central Government over reserved forests by expressly

prohibiting the States from de-reservation of notified reserved

forests without the prior approval of the Central Government.

The Act passed after the constitutional amendment in 1976,

transferring the subject of forests from the State List in the 7th

Schedule to the Concurrent List, effectively limited the power

of the States over reserved forests [6]. (The Supreme Court

later in the late 1990s, was to capture this power through

judicial pronouncements denuding the Central Government of

these powers).

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,

was the next piece of legislation to emerge. The Air Act

referred to the agenda of the UN Conference in Stockholm in

its preamble and expressed the necessity to implement the

decisions taken at the Conference “in so far as they relate to

the preservation of the quality of air and control of air

pollution” [11]. The Act defined air pollutant to mean any

solid, liquid or gaseous substance, including noise present in

concentrations sufficient to be injurious to human health – as

wide a definition as could be required to deal with any

eventuality7. The Pollution Control Boards were vested with

the same powers under the Air Act for prevention, control and

enforcement of mitigation measures for air pollution as was

rendered to them under the Water Act in relation to water

pollution.

The phase of legislative hyperactivity but administrative

incapacity was woefully exposed by the greatest industrial

disaster to confront the world in recent times - the Bhopal Gas

tragedy.

IV. THE BHOPAL GAS LEAK TRAGEDY AND

POLICY RESPONSES (1983-1991)

In the early hours of December 3, 1984, poisonous methyl

isocyanate gas from the Bhopal plant of Union Carbide India

Limited (UCIL) was released into the atmosphere. Thousands

of people residing in the vicinity of the plant were caught

unawares. No alarm was sounded and by the time morning

arose, the effects of the gas release became visible. Over the

6 The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, retrieved from

http://indiacode.nic.in/fullact1.asp?tfnm=198069 on April 20, 2014. 7 The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 retrieved from http://envfor.nic.in/legis/air/air1.html on April 20, 2014.

next few days, the death count arose sharply reaching 4000. It

was estimated that over 500,000 people had been exposed to

the gas with the health of over 35,000 people being affected in

the medium and long-term [12]. The incident completely

changed the course of public response to environmental

issues.

The public clamour from the Bhopal Gas tragedy forced

policy action from Government. The Environment

(Protection) Act, 19868, was passed by Parliament with

extraordinary rapidity with the time duration between the

introduction of the Bill in Parliament to its passage by both

Houses of Parliament and its assent by the President spanning

just 16 days9. This Act invoked the provisions of the

Constitution, enabling Parliament to legislate for

implementing a decision taken at an international conference

with reference to the deliberations at the UN Conference in

Stockholm, thereby resolving the intricate issue of legislative

jurisdiction. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act

expressed concern about “decline in environmental quality,

increasing pollution, loss of vegetative cover and biological

diversity, excessive concentration of harmful chemicals in

ambient atmosphere, growing risks of environmental

accidents and threats of life systems” [8]. The Act defined

environment comprehensively to include “water, air and land

and the inter-relationship which exists along and between

water, air, land and human beings, other living creatures,

plants, micro-organisms and property.” The Environment

(Protection) Act gave extensive powers to the Central

Government, arrogating to it the power to set environmental

standards, granting environmental clearances for all kinds of

industries and activities, laying down safeguards for

prevention of accidents and notifying enforcement authorities.

The States’ role in environment policy was greatly

diminished, though the State Pollution Control Boards

continued to remain the notified enforcement authorities by

virtue of subordinate legislation under the Act. The

Environment (Protection) Act, along with the Water Act and

the Air Act, constituted the triad of laws that regulated

environmental pollution and abatement measures.

Two other legislations emerged from the ashes of the

Bhopal Gas tragedy – the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster

(Processing of Claims) Act, 198510

, and the Public Liability

Insurance Act, 199111

. The first legislation empowered the

Central Government as the sole representative of all victims in

all legal matters with the Union Carbide on compensation to

victims [8]. The compensation claims were first filed in the

8 The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, retrieved from

http://envfor.nic.in/legis/env/env1.html on July 5, 2014. 9 From the website of the Lok Sabha

http://164.100.47.4/newlsbios_search/NewAdvsearch.aspx seen on July 5,

2014. 10 The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, from

http://indiacode.nic.in/fullact1.asp?tfnm=198521 on July 5, 2014. 11 The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, retrieved from http://indiacode.nic.in/fullact1.asp?tfnm=199106 on July 5, 2014.

5

U.S Federal Court which ruled that India and not U.S was the

appropriate forum for pursuit of compensation litigation. In

May 1986, Judge Keenan directed Union Carbide to offer an

interim relief of $5-10 million as “a matter of fundamental

human decency” [13]. The Bhopal District Court on

December 17, 1987 awarded an interim compensation of Rs

3.5 billion. On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court

reduced the interim compensation to Rs 2.5 billion. The

Supreme Court gave a “full and final compensation” of U.S

$470 million (Rs 705 million at the prevailing exchange rates)

of all claims, rights and liabilities as “just, equitable and

reasonable settlement”[13]. The judgment drew adverse

comparison with the Exxon Valdez oil spill where Exxon

offered a voluntary settlement of $300 million and spent over

$2 billion in clean-up efforts in removing the oil from the

water and adjacent shores12

. Learning from the experience of

continuously stalling release of immediate compensatory

relief to victims of a disaster through litigation, the Public

Liability Insurance Act, enacted in 1991, aimed “to provide

for mandatory public liability insurance for installations

handling hazardous substances to provide minimum relief to

victims” [8]. The liability was ‘no fault’, not requiring

negligence or wrongful action to be proved and did not

indemnify the installation from punitive claims for damages.

The National Forest Policy of 1988 stressed environmental

stability and maintenance of ecological balance. It differed

from the earlier policies by placing economic benefits of

forests and subordinate to its environmental value [4]. The

customary rights of local populace to minor forest produce

were recognised. The policy protected the first claim of local

communities to fuel wood, fodder and other produce of

forests. It promoted the organisation of local inhabitants of

forests for protection, development and management of

forests. The Policy of 1988 brought in a community approach

to forestry rights.

IV. THE ERA OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN

ENVIRONMENT.

A. Public Interest Litigation: Tool for defining

Environmental Policy

During the Emergency years (1975-77), civil liberties

guaranteed by the Constitution were suspended. The

acquiescence of the Supreme Court of India to suspension of

civil liberties including the right to life (ADM Jabalpur v/s

Shiv Kant Shukla -AIR 1976 SC 120713

) led to a Newtonian

12 Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in re: Exxon Valdez, Grant Baker et al v. Joseph Hazelwood and Exxon

Corporation, Exxon Shipping Company (2001) retrieved from

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thvaldez.pdf on July 5, 2014. 13 ADM Jabalpur v/s Shiv Kant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207) retrieved from

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/ on July 16, 2014

reaction once the Emergency was lifted. Post-Emergency, the

Supreme Court entered a new phase of assertion as the

protector of civil liberties and defender of fundamental rights

enshrined in the Constitution.

Justice P.N Bhagwati, a leading judge of the Supreme

Court and one of the earliest proponents of public interest

litigation defined it in People’s Union of Democratic Rights

v/s Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473)14

:

“We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our

command that public interest litigation which is a

strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is

intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor

masses, who constitute the low visibility area of

humanity is a totally different kind of litigation from

the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially

of an adversarial character where there is a dispute

between two litigating parties, one making claim or

seeking relief against the other and that other

opposing such claim or resisting such relief. Public

interest litigation is brought before the Court not for

the purpose of enforcing the rights of one individual

against another as happens in the case of ordinary

litigation, but is intended to promote and vindicate

public interest which demands that violations of

constitutional or legal rights of large number of

people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or

economically disadvantaged position should not go

unnoticed and unredressed.”

The instrument of PIL became the tool for judicial

activism in the environmental field. The Bhopal Gas tragedy

had shocked the nation bringing alive the potential threat to

life due to unsafe manufacturing practices. Soon after, there

was an incident of oleum gas leakage from an industry in the

national capital, Delhi, in which amongst others, a practising

advocate died. This was brought to the Supreme Court in a

PIL by M.C. Mehta, an advocate and a public-spirited citizen.

In M.C.Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086), the

Supreme Court considered the damage being done to the

environment and the threat to life and the health of the people.

The Court directed that “an enterprise which is engaged in a

hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a

potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working

in the factory and residing in the surrounding area owes an

absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure

that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or

inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has

undertaken.” 15

The Court directed that the highest standards

of safety must be adopted and the enterprise must be

absolutely liable to compensate for any harm. The Court

brought forth the doctrine of strict and absolute liability and

14 Para 1 of the judgment in People’s Union of Democratic Rights v/s Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473) retrieved from

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/496663/ retrieved on July 16, 2014. 15 Para 7(i) of judgement in M.C.Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086) retrieved from http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/ on July 9,

2014.

6

refused the claims by the petitioner of ‘no fault’ and

‘reasonable care’ to escape compensatory liability.

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun

v/s State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 652), the Supreme Court

directed the closure of all lime-stone quarries in the Doon

Valley. The Court observed that lime-stone quarries and

excavation in the area had adversely affected water springs

and the ecology of the region. The Court placed the right of

the people to live in healthy environment with minimal

disturbance of ecological balance as superior to the right to

trade and occupation of individuals and businesses under

Article 19 of the Constitution16

. The judgment implied that the

right to wholesome environment was an implicit construct

built into the right to life – a principle that the Court came to

elaborate in detail in subsequent orders.

In another PIL, M.C Mehta v/s Union of India (1988 1

SCC 471)17

, the issue before the Supreme Court was Ganga

water pollution caused by trade effluents discharged by

tanneries into the river in Kanpur. The Court relaxed the rule

of locus standi, stating that the petitioner was entitled to move

the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as an

interested citizen, in protecting the lives of people who make

use of the river water. The Court placed an equal

responsibility upon the Kanpur Municipal Corporation for

discharge of insufficiently treated sewage into the river. The

result of the judgement was constitution of the Ganga River

Basin Authority by the Central Government for abatement of

pollution of the Ganga. The Authority became the medium for

channelling funds to Urban Local Bodies for abatement of

pollution caused by release of municipal sewage into the

Ganga. While continuing to hear the matter, the Supreme

Court in 1988 (AIR 1988 SC 1037)18

observed that the

effluent discharged from a tannery was ten times more

noxious in comparison to municipal sewage. The Court

reiterated the superior right to a clean environment and

negated the argument that the financial capacity of the

tanneries was limited, while directing them to establish

primary treatment plants. The Court compared an industry

which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers and

therefore cannot exist, to a tannery which cannot set up a

primary effluent treatment plant due to financial incapacity

and therefore should not be permitted to operate.

The Supreme Court in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti

Sangharsh Samiti v/s State of U.P (AIR 1990 SC 2060)19

16 Pg. 10 of judgment in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun

v/s State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 652) retrieved from

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949293/ on June 21, 2014. 17 Judgment in M.C Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1988 1 SCC 471) retrieved

from http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1208005/ on June 21, 2014.

18 Judgment in M.C Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1037) retrieved

from http://indiankanoon.org/doc/59060/ on June 21, 2014. 19 Pg. 4 of judgment in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v/s State of U.P (AIR 1990 SC 2060) retrieved from

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/45508/ on June 22, 2014.

stated that every citizen has a fundamental right to enjoy a

healthy quality of life. In Subhash Kumar v/s State of Bihar

(AIR 1991 SC 420)20

, the Court observed that under Article

21 of the Constitution, people have the right to clean water

and pure air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers

or impairs that quality of life in violation or derogation of

laws, a citizen has the right to take recourse to Article 32 of

the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air

which may be detrimental to the quality of life. Hereafter,

environmental matters of concern to citizens could be agitated

directly before the superior courts under Article 32 and Article

226 of the Constitution that gave a right to any citizen to

approach the judiciary for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Matters concerning environment could be raised as violation

of fundamental rights rather than claims under law of torts.

In M.C Mehta v/s Union of India (22.11.1991)21

, the

Supreme Court stated that an informed citizenry is essential

for the environment to be protected and laws to be enforced.

Keeping every citizen informed and aware of the ills of

pollution was the obligation of the Government. The Court,

therefore, directed the introduction of compulsory education

on the environment at all levels of formal education in a

graded way.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v/s Union of India

(AIR 1996 SC 2715)22

, the Supreme Court built the

‘precautionary’ principle and ‘polluter pays’ principle into

environmental law. Articles 48A and 51A(g) introduced by

the 42nd

Amendment were read as part of the constitutional

mandate imposed upon the State to protect and improve the

environment. This was further articulated in the case of M.C.

Mehta v/s Kamal Nath (1997 (1) SCC 388) where the Court

was of the opinion that Articles 48A and 51A(g) have to be

considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution on the

right to life. The Court pronounced that “any disturbance of

the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil

necessary for life, that could be hazardous to life, would result

in abridgement of the right to life and a Court could award

damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance,

but also for the victims who have suffered due to that

disturbance.”23

This was a landmark judgment in the course of

evolution of environmental policy and law.

In M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 734), the

petitioner alleged that the Taj Mahal had developed a

20 Pg. 8 of judgment in Subhash Kumar v/s State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 420)

retrieved from http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1646284/ on June 22, 2014. 21 Judgment of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India, November 22, 1991, Centre for Environment Education, retrieved from

http://www.greenteacher.org/images/File/Supreme%20Court%20EE/22_11_1

991.pdf on June 28, 2014. 22 Pg. 10 of judgment in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v/s Union of India

(AIR 1996 SC 2715) retrieved from http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/ on June 28, 2014. 23 Para 24 and para 35 of judgment in M.C. Mehta v/s Kamal Nath (1997 1

SCC 388) retrieved from website of International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC) http://www.ielrc.org/content/e9615.pdf on June 29,

2014.

7

yellowish tinge with brown and black spots owing to the

increased levels of pollution. The main pollutant was

identified as sulphur dioxide released by the industries in the

Taj Trapezium – a trapezoid area comprising five districts in

the Agra region - which later on reacted with rain water to

give acid rain. In order to preserve and protect the Taj Mahal,

the Supreme Court stepped into administrative domain,

directing the Government to make available natural gas to the

Mathura Petroleum Refinery, the glass factories of Ferozabad

and other industries in the Agra region. The Gas Authority of

India (GAIL) was asked by the Government to lay a natural

gas pipeline to provide feedstock to the industries. Those

industries that could not shift to natural gas were directed to

be relocated or closed. The Supreme Court reiterated the

‘polluter pays’ and ‘precautionary’ principles stating that

where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage,

lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for

postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation24

.

The Court elaborated that the onus of proof is on the alleged

polluter to show that his action is environmentally benign.

The Supreme Court went beyond national laws to rely

upon the principles of the Stockholm Conference in Essar Oil

Ltd. v/s Halar Utkarsh Samiti (AIR 2004 SC 1834) in

maintaining the balance between economic development and

environmental protection. The Court observed that the natural

resources of the earth must be safeguarded for the benefit of

present and future generations through careful planning and

management. Quoting the principles in the Stockholm

Declaration, the Court stated that man has a special

responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of

wildlife and its habitat, which are now gravely imperilled by a

combination of adverse factors25

. The Court directed that

nature conservation, including wildlife, must receive

importance in planning for economic development.

B. Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case: Judiciary cleans up

a city.

On January 7, 199826

, in a matter being heard on

vehicular pollution in Delhi, the Supreme Court directed the

Government to establish an Authority to advise the Court on

pollution matters in the National Capital Region and to

monitor implementation of its orders. The draft of the

notification constituting the Environment Pollution

(Protection and Control) Authority (EPCA) was placed before

the Court and issued on January 29, 1998, after the Court had

24 Pg. 45 of judgment in M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 734)

retrieved from http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=14555 on June 29, 2014. 25 Pg. 8 of judgment in Essar Oil Ltd. v/s Halar Utkarsh Samiti (AIR 2004 SC 1834) retrieved from http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1319748/ on June 28, 2014. 26 Pg. 2 of judgment dated January 7, 1998, in M.C Mehta v/s Union of India

(Delhi Vehicular Pollution case) retrieved from http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=13535 on June 21,

2014.

ratified it27

. The EPCA has since then played an important

role as an executive arm of the State in advising the Supreme

Court in environmental matters and acting as a watch-dog on

implementation of Court’s directions. Drawing strength from

the Supreme Court’s directions, the EPCA was influential in

taking several administrative steps for mitigation of vehicular

pollution in Delhi. It was on the advice of the EPCA, backed

by directions from the Supreme Court that all public buses

were asked to switch to compressed natural gas (CNG) as fuel

and those which could not were prevented from plying. The

directions were later extended to other forms of commercial

transport, such as auto-rickshaws, despite collective pressure

from their owners. The Court in a scathing order on April 5,

2002, stated that the auto policy should be such as to “balance

the needs of transportation with the need to protect the

environment and reverse the large scale degradation that has

resulted over the years, priority must be given to the

environment over economic issues.”28

The Court turned down

the objections of the Government on the adequate availability

of CNG to meet the needs of the transport sector and laid

down the priority for gas allocation, with preference being

given to the transport sector and the needs of other industries

to be met only after the CNG for public transportation in

Delhi was made available. With this judgment, the primacy of

the judiciary in prescribing environmental policy, laying down

principles of environmental law and administrative

implementation of decisions impinging on environment was

unequivocally established.

C. Judicial Activism and Forestry

Judicial overreach in forestry matters did not lag behind.

In T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India, the

Supreme Court, in a series of orders pronounced over a

decade, completely took over administrative control of the

powers of the Central Government for diversion of forest land

for non-forest purposes. In an order on December 12, 199629

,

the Supreme Court defined forest to mean not only any land

recorded as forest in land records but also all areas considered

as forests in the dictionary meaning of the term, irrespective

of ownership. The Court directed all States to forthwith cease

all tree-felling activity in forest land. The Court followed the

mechanism adopted by it in the Delhi Vehicular Pollution

case and directed the constitution of a Central Empowered

Committee (CEC) reporting directly to the Supreme Court to

monitor the implementation of its orders on environmental

matters “including encroachment removals, implementation of

working plans, compensatory afforestation, plantations and

27 Order establishing EPCA dated January 29, 1998, retrieved from

http://hspcb.gov.in/Environment%20Protection%20Authority.pdf on June 21,

2014. 28 Pg. 3 of judgment dated April 5, 2002 in M.C Mehta v/s Union of India

(Delhi Vehicular Pollution case) retrieved from http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=20592 on June 21,

2014. 29 Pg 2 of Order dated December 12, 1996, in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India retrieved from http://indiankanoon.org/doc/298957/ on

July 12, 2014.

8

other conservation issues.”30

The order required that the

appointment of the Chairman and members of the CEC could

be made only after consultation with the amicus curiae of the

Court and once appointed, could not be removed without the

Court’s approval. The CEC was made the nodal agency for

vetting all proposals for change in land use of forests received

from the States through the Central Government. On October

29, 2002, the Court directed that no State would grant

permission to any veneer, saw mill, or plywood industry

without the prior permission of the CEC31

. Thereby, the Court

arrogated the power of the executive under the Forest

(Conservation) Act to a body nominally appointed by the

executive but in reality under the complete oversight of the

Court.

On October 29, 200232

, the Supreme Court specified the

methodology for calculation of amount to be paid for

compensatory afforestation on diversion of forest land and

laid down guidelines for utilisation of sums collected for

compensatory afforestation. On the recommendation of the

CEC, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a body,

the Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and

Planning Authority (CAMPA), for management of the funds

with the concurrence of the CEC. All funds previously

collected by the Governments and unutilised, were transferred

to the “Compensatory Afforestation Fund” created by the

Court. In an order on March 28, 200833

, the Court fixed the

rates for compensatory afforestation varying from Rs 438,000

per hectare to Rs 1.043 million per hectare, depending on the

eco-class and density sub-class in which the land being

diverted fell. The Court further specified that in case of land

located in National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, the rate

payable would be 10 times and 5 times of the normal rates

respectively. The Court, in an order on March 12, 201434

,

gave a set of detailed directions for release of monies

collected under CAF to States for environmental regeneration

and afforestation. While doing so, the Court recorded that the

30 Order dated May 9, 2002, in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India retrieved from

http://cecindia.org/sc_documents/(56)I.A.no.295%20%20W.P.(c)no.202%201

995%20%20and%20%20W.P.(c)no.171%20%201996%20%20%2009.05.2002.pdf on July 12, 2014. 31 Para 33 of Order dated October 29, 2002, in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India retrieved from

http://cecindia.org/sc_documents/(33)I.A.no.566%20W.P.(c)no.202%201995

%20%2029.10.2002.pdf on July 12, 2014. 32 Order dated October 29, 2002, in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union

of India retrieved from

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41309 on July 12, 2014. 33 Order dated March 28, 2008, in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of

India retrieved from http://cecindia.org/sc_documents/(15)I.A.nos.826,in,566,955,in566,958,985,1

001-1001A,1013-1014,1016-

018,1019,1046,1047%20etc.%20%20W.P.(c)no.202%201995%2028.03.2008.pdf on July 12, 2014. 34 Para 25 of Order dated March 12, 2014, in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad

v/s Union of India retrieved from http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41309 on July 13,

2014.

funds at the disposal of CAMPA were around Rs 280 billion

in April 2013 with annual accruals, including interest, of Rs

60 billion.

D. Judiciary and the Narmada Movement

The Narmada Dam was conceptualised in 1949 on the

recommendations of the Khosla Committee in the immediate

aftermath of Independence. The foundation stone for Stage-I

of the project was laid by the Prime Minister of India on April

5, 1961. Due to disagreement between the riverine States the

project floundered. In 1968, the State of Gujarat, the principal

beneficiary State, made a reference to the Government of

India seeking the constitution of a Tribunal under the Inter

State Water Disputes Act, 1956, to resolve the disputes

between the States. After a decade of hearings, the Tribunal

announced its Award which was published on December 12,

1979 [14]. The World Bank sanctioned financial credit for the

project in May 1985 and environmental clearance was

accorded by the Central Government in June 1987, a year in

which India faced one of its worst droughts with the failure of

the monsoon rains. The construction of the dam commenced

immediately thereafter.

Civil society organisations started an agitation

championing the cause of those who were being ousted from

their land holdings due to the dam construction. The Award of

the Tribunal had broken from past tradition while laying down

a plan for rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced

families. It stipulated ‘land for land’ as compensation rather

than money. Each displaced family was to be allotted land of

its choice within the irrigated area of the dam equivalent in

area from which they were being displaced, or minimum 2

hectares [14]. The Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the

Narmada Movement) was born in 1989 as a rainbow coalition

of these civil society organisations. As the movement gathered

strength through methods of civil disobedience besides openly

flouting the Government’s directions to vacate the land and

embracing possible death on submergence rather than be

displaced. The NBA’s efforts drew international attention

putting pressure on the World Bank to constitute a project

review on rehabilitation and environmental mitigation efforts.

The Independent Review Committee led by Bradford Morse

in a report submitted in 1993 to the World Bank severely

criticised rehabilitation efforts. The supporters of the NBA

world-wide brought immense pressure on developed nations’

governments to cancel funding for the project. The World

Bank was split down the middle and as a compromise laid out

6 conditions for continued financial assistance. The

compromise was not acceptable to the Indian Government

vowing to continue with project implementation [15].

The NBA approached the Supreme Court in 1994

alleging that the rehabilitation and environmental mitigation

terms set out by the Tribunal and environmental clearance

were not being fulfilled. The Court, in an interim direction,

halted construction. As the years passed, the proponents of the

dam gathered strength and two continuous years of failed

monsoons brought the need for water management to the fore.

9

The Supreme Court in its judgment on October 18, 2000,

finally decided in favour of the project while setting up a

monitoring mechanism for rehabilitation and resettlement and

requiring prior environment clearance of mitigation efforts

and approval of the Narmada Control Authority at every stage

of increasing dam height. The Court observed35

that, “it

should not be forgotten that poverty is regarded as one of the

causes of degradation of environment. With improved

irrigation system the people will prosper. The construction of

Bhakra Dam is a shining example for all to see how the

backward area of erstwhile undivided Punjab has now become

the granary of India with improved environment than what

was there before the completion of the Bhakra Nangal

project.” The Court also went on to observe that global

warming had become a major cause of concern. It justified the

directions by mentioning that hydel power can be termed as

being ecologically friendly as its contribution to the

greenhouse effect was negligible.

E. The Later Phase of Judicial Activism: The National

Green Tribunal

The National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA)36

was constituted in 1997 as an independent body to hear

grievances against environment clearances granted in

restricted areas. The NEAA was assailed as ineffective,

lacking technical expertise and leaning towards the

Government in performing its judicial functions. Civil society

organisations clamoured for representation from outside

Government in the NEAA [16]. The failure of the NEAA led

to a new tribunal, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), being

constituted in 2010 after enactment of the National Green

Tribunal Act37

. The Tribunal was endowed with extensive

powers to hear grievances and appeals under all the

environment related legislations. The NGT Act had a built in

criteria for representation of experts in environment matters,

answering the main criticism that had been levelled against

the NEAA. After teething troubles, the NGT assumed the role

of the judiciary in directing environmental law and

administrative action38

. The Posco Case established the

credentials of the NGT as an independent body. Upholding

the principle of sustainable development in favour of local

communities who would have been displaced, the NGT

directed the suspension of the environmental clearance given

to the project for establishment of a 12 MTPA capacity steel

plants in Odisha. In another industry matter, in the Sterlite

35 Pg. 74 of judgement in Narmada Bachao Andolan v/s Union of India retrieved from http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=17165

on July 24, 2014.

36 The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997, retrieved from http://envfor.nic.in/legis/others/envapp97.html on July 16, 2014. 37 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, retrieved from http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/acts.php on July 16, 2014. 38 National Green Tribunal: Three Years of Revolutionary Jurisprudence,

Article on National Green Tribunal retrieved from http://www.wwfindia.org/about_wwf/enablers/cel/national_green_tribunal/art

icle_by_cel/ on July 16, 2014.

industries order, NGT passed an order in favour of the

industries and stated that “environmental restrictions must

operate with all their rigour but no action should be suspicion-

based which itself is not well-founded”. In the Goa

Foundation case, the prayer of the petitioner was for directions

to be given for preservation and protection of the ecologically

sensitive Western Ghats. This case established NGT’s

jurisdiction over civil matters involving a substantial question

of environment. The matter is still being heard by NGT. In the

sand mining order, the NGT put a ban on all forms of river

and ocean bed sand mining operating without environmental

clearances. The NGT has come to occupy the activist judicial

space in environmental matters in a short span of time.

V. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Environment policy in India has evolved under the

dominant influence of specific actors and events over time. In

the initial colonial and post-colonial phase, environment

policy was centered around the rights over forests and usage

of forest produce. Forests were appropriated as property of the

State. The dominant themes were revenue accretion and usage

of forest products to fulfil development needs, specifically in

the spread of the railways and communication network across

the country. The post-colonial phase immediately after

Independence in 1947 did not see a significant shift from the

colonial period. However, the importance placed on income

generated from forest resources withered away. Forests were

seen as supporting paramount national needs.

Industrialisation, agricultural and infrastructure development

were the primary goals in independent India and forests were

envisaged as a contributory element for serving these goals.

Afforestation programmes through tree plantation festivals

were pursued aggressively, built around religious symbolism

of the tree in traditional mythology and customs. Plantation of

fast growing species in public areas and common lands was

encouraged. During this period, forest and wildlife protection

were in the hands of States under the constitutional scheme.

The UN Conference on Human Environment in 1972

marked a significant milestone that changed the course of

environmental policy forever. The presence and participation

of the Prime Minister of India in the Conference deliberations

brought an immediate response by way of Government’s

focus on conservation initiatives. The period from 1972 to

1980 saw a large number of legislations being enacted, aimed

at forest conservation, protection of wildlife and a framework

for abatement of water pollution. These legislations were

passed by Parliament exercising its powers under the

Constitution to legislate a common framework for two or

more States on subject matters assigned to States. New

organisations, the Pollution Control Boards and Wildlife

Wardens were established in the States and invested with legal

powers. The 42nd

Amendment to the Constitution in 1976

permanently shifted the locus of environmental policy to the

Central Government. After 1976, the elected State

Governments were left with little say in policy formulation on

10

environmental matters. The Forest (Conservation) Act took

away whatever little power States had in diversion of forest

land for non-forest usages. Public opinion had little to do with

the shift in power from the States to the Central Government

and numerous legislations then emerged in this period. The

Chipko movement in this phase stood out by creating an

awakening, though it had a marginal impact on long-term

environmental policy.

The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster was a defining moment in

India’s environmental history. The inadequacy of the

governance structure in prevention of the disaster, the inability

of legal and administrative processes to deliver adequate

compensation to the affected people and stirring of public

consciousness about the threats posed by environmental

negligence, came together to reshape environmental policy.

The Environment (Protection) Act, the most significant

environmental legislation in independent India, came into

force without substantive debate in Parliament or outside. It

armed the State with extensive powers to regulate any form of

economic activity from an environmental perspective. The

failure of the executive and judiciary in providing rightful

compensation due to the affected people in the Bhopal Gas

Leak Disaster, brought the Public Liability Insurance Act into

being, providing for the first time a ‘no fault’ immediate

compensation mechanism to the affected persons.

A chemical leak incident in the national capital shortly

after the Bhopal disaster and the death of a practising advocate

in the incident became the trigger for judicial involvement in

environmental matters. The instrument of the public interest

litigation had been discovered by the judiciary to deliver basic

civil rights emerging from constitutional provisions in the

post-Emergency era. PIL became an important tool for

evolution of environmental policy, prodding the Government

into action. Judicial dictum laid down the three guiding

principles for judging environmental issues – ‘polluter pays’,

‘precautionary principle’ and ‘sustainable development’. New

organisations such as the Central Empowered Committee in

forestry matters, the Environment (Protection and Control)

Authority and the Compensatory Afforestation Funds

Management and Planning Authority came into being through

judicial interventions. The source of policy developments in

environment decisively shifted from an elected political

executive to an unelected judiciary. The establishment of a

specialised judicial body, the National Green Tribunal, has

brought the reach of judicial determination of environmental

policy closer. International debates on climate change in

recent years and commitments to abatement measures

appeared only at the fringes of policy discussions. Measures to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example, did not find

space in common discourse, giving way to the needs of

economic development in a growing economy. Lately, the

environmental clearance process for industrial and business

activity has been projected as hindering economic

development rather than contributing to the cause of

sustainable development.

Democratic involvement of people in environmental

policy through healthy discussion and debate, rather than

executive or judicial dictum, waits for the future.

REFERENCES

[1] G.M Grossman and Krueger, A.B., 1995, “Economic Growth and the Environment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume

110(2), pg. 353-377 accessed on May 10, 2014.

[2] Arun Bandopadhyay, 2009, “The Colonial Legacy of Forest

Policies in India”, paper read at the Indo-Japanese Conference on South Asian Economy and Environment, New Delhi on 5-6

September 2009 from www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~india-

s/PDF/.../sep_arun_bandopadhyay.pdf accessed on April 12, 2014

[3] S. Balaji, 2002, “Forest Policy in India – in Retrospect and

Prospect”, International Union of Forest Research Organisations

(IUFRO), paper presented at the IUFRO Science/Policy Interface

Task Force regional meeting from July 16-19, 2002 from

http://iufro-archive.bokut/iufro/taskforce/tfscipol/chennai-

papers/fbalaji.pdf accessed on April 12, 2014.

[4] Dinesh Pratap, 2010, “Community Participation and Forest

Policies in India: An Overview”, Social Change 40(3) pp 235-266,

2010, India Environment Portal from

http://www.environmentportal.in/files/forest%20policies.pdf

accessed on April 12, 2014.

[5] United Nations Environment Programme, 1972, Declaration of the

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, from

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?docume

ntid=97&articleid=1503 accessed on April 19, 2014

[6] Usha Ramanathan, 2004, “Law and the Constitution: Eviction of

Forest Communities”, Briefing Paper from International Environmental Law Research Centre from

http://www.ielrc.org/content/f0401.htm accessed on June 14, 2014.

[7] Neelima Rajvaidya and Dilip Kumar Markandey, 2008,

Environmental Pollution Control, Chapter 5, pp.27-30, published by A.P.H Publishing Corporation. (SOR Water Act)

[8] U. Sankar, 1998, Laws and Institutions Relating to Environmental

Protection in India, paper presented at the Conference on ‘The

Role of Law and Legal Institutions in Asian Economic Development’, held at the Erasmus University Rotterdam,

November 1-4, 1998, Madras School of Economics from

http://www.mse.ac.in/pub/op_sankar.pdf accessed on April 20,

2014.

[9] Swarndeep Hundal, 2004, Wildlife Conservation Strategies and

Management in India: An Overview, T.D. Hooper, editor,

Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference, March 2–6, 2004, from

http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/69415913/hundal_edited_final_mar

ch_10.pdf accessed on June 14, 2014

[10] Arvind Singhal and Sarah Lubjuhn, The Chipko Environmental Conservation Movement in India, in In John Downing (Ed.)

Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media, Beverley Hills, CA:

Sage Publications from http://www.rareplanet.org/sites/rareplanet.org/files/Singhal-

Lubjuhn-Chipko-Entry-

11

Encycl%20of%20Social%20Movements%204-7-08.pdf accessed

on April 18, 2014.

[11] Prof. Saligram Bhat, 2008, Environment Protection and

Sustainable Development, Chapter 4, pp 67-68, published by A.P.H Publishing Corporation. (Tiwari Committee)

[12] Paul Cullinan, 2004, Case Study of the Bhopal Incident,

Environmental Toxicology and Human Health, UNESCO-

Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) from http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c09/e4-12-02-04.pdf

accessed on June 28, 2014

[13] Sanjib Dutta, 2002, ICFAI Centre of Management Research from

http://www.econ.upf.edu/~lemenestrel/IMG/pdf/bhopal_gas_tragedy_dutta.pdf accessed on June 28, 2014

[14] Professor M.J Peterson with Osman Kiratli and Ilke Ercan,

Narmada Dams Controversy: A Case Study, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, International Dimensions of Ethics

Education Case Study Series (2010), retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&

context=edethicsinscience on July 24, 2014.

[15] Tanmayee Sahoo, Usha Prakash and Mrunmayee Sahoo, Sardar

Sarovar Dam Controversy, Global Journal of Finance and

Management, Volume 6, Number 9 (2014), pp. 887-892, retrieved

from http://www.ripublication.com/gjfm-spl/gjfmv6n9_12.pdf on

July 24, 2014.

[`16] Armin Rosencranz, Geetanjoy Sahu, and Vyom Raghuvanshi,

2009, "Whither the National Environment Appellate Authority?" Economic and Political Weekly 44 (35):10-14