“We won’t have a society if we destroy the environment”–Margaret Mead
The main object behind every research is to identify the present scenario and study the nature and extent of till date developments in various environmental statues through various laws and conventions and various issues regarding the court decision and judicial process. This paper elaborates the role of Indian Judiciary in protection of environment in India. This paper commences with the meaning and need of environmental laws. It also analyzes the judicial remedies available for environmental protection and some remarkable principles and doctrine propounded by the Indian judiciary. It further views upon the constitutional aspects and the new trends in judicial approach in environmental protection. The proposed study will lead to a more descriptive and comprehensive understanding of the environment law and the policy along with the role of Indian Judiciary in today’s context to the new emerging threat which need to be combat effectively.
Environmental protection in the past few decades has assumed not only the national importance but also the global importance. It is now an established truth beyond all doubts that without a clean environment the survival of mankind is at stake.
“The black ebony starves at judiciary which has thumped time and again for the protection of man miniature against excruciating blows of evil is known on the aspiration for protecting environment”.
In developing countries like that of India where there are large number of uneducated masses, conditions of poverty, where the awareness of socio-economic and ecological problem is lacking, the Judiciary has to play an active role to protect the people’s right against the anti people order by infusing confidence in people as whole for whom it exists for, as rightly remarked by Justice Lodha, “Judiciary exists for the people and not vice versa”.
“Nature is an eternal storehouse of great mysteries and enchanting beauties. She is a sincere friend who embalms man when his heart is wounded. She is a great philosopher who answers many a question of men. So spell bound the men become by her overall beauties that he finds tongues in trees, books in brooks, sermons in stones and good in everything. Nature is a thing of beauty and being in the company of Nature means a joy forever”.
Man is both the creature and moulders of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the best opportunity to develop himself into spiritual being. In the long and tortuous evolution of human race on this planet, a stage has been reached when through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on unprecedented scale. Both aspect’s of man environment, natural and manmade are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basic human right and the right to life itself.
Environment is the wellspring of life on earth like water, air, soil, etc., and determines the presence, development and improvement of humanity and all its activities. The concept of ecological protection and preservation is not new. It has been intrinsic to many ancient civilizations. Ancient India texts highlights that it is the dharma of each individual in the society to protect nature and the term ‘nature’ includes land, water, trees and animals which are of great importance to us. . In the ‘Atharva Veda’, the ancient Hindu Sceptres’ stated “What of thee I dig out let that quickly grow over”. Thus the word “environment” includes surroundings. It can be defined as anything which may be treated as covering the physical surroundings that are common to all of us including land, air, water, space and wildlife. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 2(a) environment “includes water, air and land and inter- relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property”.Almost 95% action taken place in the court of law to protect the environment is through Public Interest Litigation. One of the names that come out boldly in laying the foundation of environmental Jurisprudence and environment protection is that of Spirited Public man, Shri M.C. Mehta who single handedly has filed a number of Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court relating to the different aspect of environment protection. Since the 1980’s the Public Interest Litigation has altered both the litigation landscape and the role of higher Judiciary in India. Instead of being asked to solve the private disputes, Supreme Court and High Court Judges were asked to deal with the public grievances over flagrant human rights violation by the state or to vindicate the “Public Interest Litigation”. In Public Interest Litigation the subject matter of the litigation is typically a grievance against the violation of the basic human rights of the poor and helpless people or about the content or conduct of government policy. The petitioner seeks to be the champion of a public cause for the benefit of all society.
*Emergence of PIL in India
“Access to justice through class actions, public interest litigation and representative proceedings is the present Constitutional jurisprudence”.’- Justice Krishna Iyer
The Public Interest Litigation was initiated by few Judges of the Supreme Court. The method was to redress the public grievances and relax the governing rules of locus standi. Standing is required to have a court for hearing the aggrieved person. Since court will not hear the party unless the person has sufficient stake in the particular case, judicial perception of who has sufficient interest (i.e. the person aggrieved) is critical. The Supreme Court has lowered the standing barriers by widening the concept of the “Person Aggrieved”. The traditional approach of PIL was restricted only to a person whose own right was in jeopardy was entitled to seek the remedy. When the term was extended to public action this meant that a person asserting a public right or interest has to show that he or she had suffered some grave or special injury over and above what members of public had generally suffered. In 1970’s two forces combined to erode the doctrinal limitation of standings. The first of these arose at the start of the decade with the spreading of the concept of Social Justice and second was the emergence of Legal Aid Movement. Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N Bhagwati one of the most remarkable Judges of Supreme Court who delivered early judgements liberalizing standing were also deeply involved in fostering legal service institution for the weak, aggrieved and poor. Significantly both judges played a very important and crucial role in widening the aspect of PIL in India and it was the National Committee on Judicare which in its final report in August 1977, expressly recommended the broadening of the rule of Locus Standi as a means of encouraging Public Interest Litigation.
The second characteristic of many PIL cases is the court’s ingress into the fields traditionally reserved for the executive. Finding the executive response to be absent or deficient the Supreme Court has used its interim directions to influence the quality of administration, “making it more responsive than the constitutional ethic and law”. Professor Upendra Baxi defined described this gradual takeover as the direction of administration in particular area from the executive as “Creeping Jurisdiction”. A very good example has been set by the Supreme court regarding creeping Jurisdiction in the case of Dehra Dun Quarrying case where Supreme Court considered, balanced and resolved competing policies- including the need for the development, environmental conservation, preserving jobs and protecting substantial business investment- in deciding to close number of limestone quarries in Mussorie Hills and to allow others to continue operating under detailed conditions. In rendering this judgement the court reviewed the highly technical reports of various geological experts and gave varying weight to the expert opinions.
*Article 32 and 226 of Indian Constitution
The powers of the Supreme Court to issue directions under Article 32 and that of High Court to issue directions under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution have attained great significance in environment legislation. Courts have made use of these powers to remedy past maladies and to check immediate and future assaults on the environment. Dr. B.R. Amedkar, architect of the constitution of India, himself laid the foundation and importance of Article 32 in the following words;
“If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most important – an Article without which this Constitution would be a nullity- I could not refer to any other Article except this one ……It is the very soul o f the Constitution and the very heart of it. ”
It is true from the declaration of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Indian Constitution is meaningless unless there is an effective machinery for the enforcement of the rights. It is the remedy which makes the right real. If there is no such remedy there is no right at all.
Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move to the Supreme Court by “Appropriate Proceeding” for the enforcement of Fundamental rights conferred under Part III of Indian Constitution. Clause (2) of Article 32 confers the power on the Supreme Court to issue appropriate directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo- Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of many rights conferred by Part III of Indian Constitution. The constitution makers did not lay down any particular form of proceeding for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights nor did they stipulate that such proceeding should conform to any rigid pattern or a Straight Jacket Formula because they knew that the country like India where there is so much poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, deprivation and exploitation, any insistence on right formula of proceeding for the enforcement of Fundamental Right would become Self Defeating.
*Article 226 of Indian Constitution
An important aspect of Indian Constitution is the jurisdiction it confers upon High Court to issue writs. The writs have been among the great safeguards provided by the British judicial system for upholding the rights and liberties of people. It was an act of wisdom and foresight on the part of the constitution makers to introduce writ system in India and thus constitute the High Court into the category of guardian and protector of people’s legal right. Under Article 226, a High Court is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the natures of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo- Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of many rights conferred by Part III of Indian Constitution. The Jurisdiction conferred upon on a High Court is to protect not only the Fundamental Rights but even any other legal right as is clear from the words “Any other Purpose”.
*Public Interest Litigation- A Dynamic Concept
The traditional rule of Locus Standi that a petition under Article 32 can be filed by a person whose fundamental Rights is infringed has now been considerably relaxed by the Supreme Court in its ruling. The court permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Action Litigation at the instance of “Public Spirited Citizens” for the enforcement of constitutional and the legal rights of any person or group of persons who because of the poverty or socially, economically or due to disadvantaged position are unable to approach the court for any kind of relief.
“Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the grab of public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceedings for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of person or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 must approach this court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is [the] duty of this court to discourage such petition and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court for personal matters under the grab of the public interest litigation”.
*Protection of Ecology and Environment
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has to come to stay in India. Contrary to the past practices today a person acting a bonafide and having sufficient interest can move to the court for redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social and collective rights and interest and vindicating Public interest. In the 19th century there has been the wave of much environmental litigation. Most of such cases were in the form of class actions and PIL, obviously because environmental issue relate more too diffuse interests than to ascertained injury to the individuals. The concept of class action is embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908  where numerous people have common interests; one or more of such person can file a suit. An example of class action was Bhopal Disaster Litigation. The interest of the community can also be agitated under the law of public nuisance incorporated under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. An individual or any group or an executive magistrate, suo moto can move the courts. This provision proved to be very important and potent factor and weapon for regulatory measures as well as affirmative action by the government and local bodies for “the protection of the environment”
The ability to invoke Jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is a remarkable step forward in providing protection of the environment. Courts have widened the aspect and dimensions of the substantive “Right to health and clean and unpolluted environment”. In most of the cases, this was made possible only due to because of PIL. Thus in order to reap the benefits of substantive environment rights, court has opened the path of “Processual Justice” without enslaving themselves to the procedural compulsions. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India a social action group of people challenged the legality of granting a mining license in the protected area of forest cover. Upholding the contention the Supreme Court observed that-
“This litigation should not be treated as the usual adversarial litigation. Petitioners are acting in aid of a purpose high on the national agenda. Petitioners concern for the environment, ecology and the wildlife should be shared by the government. ”
This observation of the Supreme Court is important as it emphasises the rationale of PIL in environmental issues. It is the duty of the state to protect the environment- a duty imposed by the Directive Principle of State Policies and Fundamental Duties, incorporated by Forty second Amendment Act of the Constitution. Any person who raise environmental issues, whether individual, group or any institution is equally concerned with the problem. Such Litigation can never be considered as one of the adversarial confrontation with the State.
*Environmental Care by the Constitution and Judicial Grammar of Interpretation of Fundamental Norms
The Indian constitution is amongst the few constitutions in the world that contains the specific provision on environmental protection. The Directive principle of State policy and fundamental duties explicitly enunciate the national commitment to protect, preserve and improve the environment. Judicial Interpretation has strengthened this constitutional mandate.
It is only because of the concept of PIL that the Supreme Court is able to give the wider interpretation to the environmental laws in India. Some of these notable interpretations are as follows-
- Every person enjoys the Right to wholesome environment which is facet of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
- Enforcement agencies are under the obligation to strictly enforce environmental laws.
- Government agencies may not plead non availability of funds, inadequacy of Staff or other insufficiencies to justify the non performance of their obligation under environmental laws.
- The Polluter Pays principle which is a part of basic environmental law of the land requires that the polluter bear the remedial clean up costs as well as the amount payable to compensate the victims of Pollution.
- The precautionary principle requires government authorities to participate and anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment pollution. This principle also imposes onus of proof on the developer and industrialists to show that his or her action is environmental benign.
The growth of environmental laws in India has been largely influenced and accelerated by Public Interest Litigation. It has generated tremendous awakening about the concept of the importance of environment and has interpreted various aspect of environment in the judgement of different courts which were certainly not known to the masses. Thus PIL had totally transformed the jurisprudence of public law review. In public interest case the subject matter of litigation is totally and typically a grievance against the violation of basic human rights of the poor and helpless or about the contents or conduct of government policy, where the petitioner seeks to be the champion a public cause for the benefit of the entire society and judge plays the activist role in contrast to passive umpire-ship traditionally associated with Judicial functions. The technique of PIL provides an effective remedy to enforce group rights and interest as the traditional Judicial System is not equipped to tackle such problems. The socio economic demands of a changing society, groaning under the strains of rapid industrial development adversely impacting the natural riches, warrant a different kind of Jurisprudence-dynamic, vibrant and resistant to address the people’s problems. PIL is one such tool to help the poor, underprivileged and downtrodden and exploited millions. It is essentially a cooperative and collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the state and public authority and the court to secure the observance of the constitutional and legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable section and community and to provide social Justice to them. It is part of participative justice, which is called upon to meet the ends of public good, interest and cause.
*Doctrines of environmental Jurisprudence;
The formulation of certain principles to develop the better regime for protecting the environment is a remarkable achievement. In this regard the observation made by Justice P. N Bhagwati in S.P Gupta V. Union of India that is –
“The Court has to innovate new methods and devise new strategies for the purpose o f providing access to justice to large masses o f people who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning.”
In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court formulated the “doctrine of Absolute Liability” for the harm caused by hazardous industry by interpreting the scope of the power under Article 32 to issue directions, orders ‘whichever may be appropriate’ in ‘appropriate proceeding’
The Precautionary Principle emphasised by the Rio Declaration on environment and development signifies a preventive approach. It states that-
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
*Polluter Pay Principle
Rapid industrial development has brought in its wake, myriad environmental and pernicious health problems. Though the industrial and technological development have helped to improve food products, raised the living standards but at the same time had adversely affected the environment and thereby disturbed the “BALANCE OF NATURE”. Moreover the improper treatment of industrial waste has led to cause a serious problem to the biotic and aboitic components of the environment.
The polluter pay principle was for the first time was applied and defined in the case of Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India, it was declared by the court that redemption of the damaged environment is part of the process of sustainable development and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost of the individual sufferers as well as the cost reversing the damaged ecology. Thus polluter pays principle means the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also to the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is the part of the process of sustainable development.
Thus after the analysis of all the aspect we can find that Supreme Court is, at the present time, stretching the different legal provisions for environmental protection. But there are some recommendations which need to be considered.
In India, media is the fourth pillar of the popular government. It plays an exceptionally essential and compelling part in the general improvement of the country. The effect of media can be seen in the different trials directed by it just by publishing them in their media. Accordingly, the issue of environmental pollution can be checked by making mindfulness in the general population, in which media’s part is extremely critical. The compelling agency of correspondence not just influences the mind of the individuals but is also capable of developing thoughts and desirable attitudes of the people for protecting environment.
There is a requirement for a standard review apparatus, which can inspect and examine periodically every one of those exercises which are threatening the environment. This would be a successful step towards environment protection, since prevention is better than cure.
There is no means for any law, unless it’s an effective and successful implementation, and for effective implementation, public awareness is a crucial condition. Therefore, it is essential that there ought to be proper awareness. This contention is additionally maintained by the Apex Court in the instance of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. In this case, Court directed the Union Government was obliged to issue directions to all the State governments and the union territories to enforce through authorities as a condition for license on all cinema halls, to obligatory display free of expense no less than two slides/messages on environment amid each show.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need but not every man’s greed”– Mahatma Gandhiji
“Public Interest Litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it 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 nature and scope of PIL ensures that community rights and interest associated with the environment and biological biodiversity are effectively safeguarded. The community rights and interests concern vast majority of people who are deprived of their rights to access to justice because of the ignorance, poverty, remoteness and social and economic disadvantage. In this manner our Judiciary has played the tool of PIL quite effectively for the cause of environmental protection. Hence, PIL has proved to be a great weapon in the hands of higher courts for protection of environment & our judiciary has certainly utilized this weapon of PIL in best possible manner.
 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] Small Islands Voice – Voices in a Changing World (2004) Coastal Region and Small Island Papers ch 4 www.unesco.org (accessed 10 February 2018).
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment UN Doc A/Con/48/14/Rev.1 (1973) Preamble, para 1 [Stockholm Declaration].
 MC Mehta, GROWTH OF ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA, p.71, 1999
 Dr. Jai Ram Upadhyay, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, p.2, Allahabad: Central Law Agency, (2005).
Available at envfor.nic.in/legis/env/env1.html (accessed 10 February 2018).
 Paras Diwan and Parag Diwan, Environmental Management Law and Administration, (1998),p. 310.
 M.C. Mehta, a recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay Award and the Goldman Environmental Prize, is a Delhi based public interest lawyer who has successfully fought and won several landmark environmental cases in the Supreme Court.
 Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India : Cases, Materials and Statutes, (2001), p. 133.
 The label ‘Social Action Litigation’ is preferred by some jurists
 Akhil Bhartiya Soshil Karmachari Sangh (Railway) Vs Union of India A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 298
 The most notable contributions were made by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Bhagwati. From an international perspective, the evolution of ‘public interest law’ is an American contribution. Many trace its beginnings to the landmark desegregation decisions of the 1950s when the U.S. Supreme Court required schools in southern American States to end racial segregation. See Brown Vs Board of Education (Brown II) 349 U.S. 294,299 (1955), as cited in Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India : Cases, Materials and Statutes, (2001), p. 134.
 There are several narrow but notable exceptions to this traditional rule. For example, any person can move a writ of habeas corpus for the production o f a detained person; and a minor may sue through his or her parent or guardian.
 Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India : Cases, Materials and Statutes, (2001), p. 135.
 Government of Gujarat, Report of the Legal Aid Committee (1971), (Chairperson : P.N. Bhagwati, then the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court): Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Report o f the Expert Committee on Legal Aid : Processual Justice to the People (1973), (Chairperson: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer), as cited in Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India : Cases, Materials and Statutes, (2001), p. 135.
 Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Report on National Juridicare : Equal Justice-Social Justice, (1977), p. 61. [The Committee on Juridicare was composed of Justice Bhagwati (Chairperson) and Justice Krishna Iyer (Member)], as cited in Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India : Cases,Materials and Statutes, (2001), p. 135.
 Upendra Baxi, ‘ Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India’, 29 The Review (International Commission of Jurists) 37, 42 (December, 1982), as cited in Shyam Divan and Arinin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India : Cases, Materials and Statutes, (2001), p. 147.
 Cunningham, ‘Public Interest Litigation in Indian Supreme Court: A Study in the Light of American Experience, ’ in (29) Journal o f the Indian Law Institute, (1987), p 494.
 P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India, (1999), p. 141.
 C.A.D. Vol. VII at p. 953, as cited in Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law o f India, (2001), p. 313.
 S.P. Gupta Vs Union of India (The Judges Transfer Case), A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149.
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (1993), p. 207.
 Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law o f India, (2015), p. 314.
 Subhash Kumar Vs State o f Bihar, A.l.R. 1991 S.C. 420.
 Locus Standi was the greatest hurdle. J.M. Desai Vs Roshan Kumar, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 578 could be cited as an illustration. The District Magistrate gave no objection certificate for a cinema house close to a burial ground, compost depot, a school and public latrines. The grant was manifestly against rules. The High Court and the Supreme Court were, however, reluctant to interfere on the ground that the rival applicants who challenged the decision had no locus standi.91 S.P. Gupta
 S.P. Gupta and Others Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149 at p. 192. See also P.Leelakrishnan, ‘Access to Legal Service and Justice’ in Cochin University Law Review, (1984) at pp. 471, 476-477.
 Order 1, Rule 8.
 The most obvious use of class action is in mass disasters of the sort that occurred in Bhopal. In the wake of the Bhopal tragedy, the Indian Government filed a class action suit on behalf of all the victims, in accordance with the terms of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act of 1985.
 Sections 133 to 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 Madhavi Vs Thilakan,  Cri. L.J. 499
 Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs Vardhichand, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1622.
 Hinch Lai Tiwari Vs Kamala Devi ,(2001) 6 S.C.C. 496; V Lakshmipathy Vs State of Karnataka, AJ.R. 1992 KANT 57 at p. 62, para 17; Kinkri Devi Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, A.I.R. 1988 H.P. 4, 9.
 P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India, (1999), p. 140.
 A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 514.
Ibid at p. 517.
 Article 48 A and 51A(g) were inserted in to the Constitution by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.
 Subhash Kumar Vs State o f Bihar, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 420,424; M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India (Delhi Stone Crushing Case), 1992 (3) S.C.C.256, 257; Virender Gaur Vs State o f Uariyana, 1995 (2) S.C.C. 577,581.
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs Union of India (CRZ Notification Case), 1996 (5) S.C.C. 281,294, 301.
 Dr. B.L. Wadehra Vs Union of India (Delhi Garbage Case), A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2969, 2976.
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs Union of India (Bichhri Case), A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1446,1466; Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2715,2721.
 Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2715,2721; Jagannath Vs Union of India (Shrimp Culture Case), A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 811,846.
 Some Jurists prefer the label ‘Social Action Litigation’. Professor Upendra Baxi prefers this term to Public Interest Litigation in the Indian context
 G.S. Tivvari, ‘Conservation o f Dio diversity and Techniques o f People’s Activism ’ in Journal
of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 43 : 2, (2001), p. 192.
 Abram Chayes,1 The Role o f Judge in Public Law Litigation’ in 89 Harv, L. Rev. 1281 (1976); Sheela Barsc Vs Union of India, A.l.R. 1988 S.C. 2211.
 Sheela Barse Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2211 at 2214.
 People’s Union o f Democratic Rights Vs Union o f India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1473 at p. 1477, Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 802 at p. 811.
 Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 344 at p. 355.
 A.I.R.’1982 S.C. 149.
 A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086.
 Principle 15. David Freestone ‘The Road from Rio : International Law After (he Earth Summit’ in Journal o f Environmental Law. (1994), 193 at pp. 210-215.
 ‘(9w Common Future’, (1987). pp. 220-221 : Report o f the World Commission on environment and Development.
 (1996) 2 J.T. (S.C.) 196.
 Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2715, 2721.
 People’s Union of Democratic Rights Vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1473 at p. 1477.