Implementation of Principle 10:
Issues and Challenges
Ritwick Dutta
Environmental Lawyer, Legal Initiative For Forest and Environment
Secretary, National Green Tribunal Bar Association, Principle
Bench, New Delhi

Principle 10
Environmental issues are best handled withparticipation of all concerned citizens, at the relevantlevel. At the national level, each individual shall haveappropriate access to information concerning theenvironment that is held by public authorities,
including information on hazardous materials andactivities in their communities, and the opportunity
to participate in decision-making processes. Statesshall facilitate and encourage public awareness andparticipation by making information widely available.
Effective access to judicial and administrative
proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall beprovided.

Access toInformation

Access toJustice

PublicParticipation

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr.
[(1995) 2 SCC 161]

“Right to information and community
participation for protection of environmentand human health is also a right which flows
from Article 21 (Right to Life) of theConstitution”
Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology Versus Union ofIndia(2005) 10 SCC 510

Access to Information

Participation: From EIA to SIA• EIA process• Land acquisition processPublic Hearing in SIA

India’s Green Tribunal

Original Jurisdiction
Civil Cases

Substantialquestions related
to environment

Legal Right toEnvironment

Enforcement ofan enactment inSchedule IRelief
Relief andCompensation tovictims of pollution

Restitution ofproperty damaged

Restitution ofEnvironment ofsuch area andareas

Key challenges in Access to Justice• Volume of litigation• Physical barriers i.e Distance factors• Limitation• Time taken for disposal of cases/ appeal• Judicial Review and Merit Review• Direct threat to litigant• Supreme Court’s regressive approach

The Vedanta Bauxite Mine

The resistancechronology•2003 Environmental Permit challenged before aspecial supreme court committee CEC by NGO’s•2005: Site visits and hearings.
•2005: CEC recommends to Supreme Court to revokeapproval•2007 Supreme Court refuses to accept CEC report.
•2008 : grants approval for bauxite mining•2009 Tribal's challenge approval before
Environmental Court•2010. Environmental Court says EIA report was notmade available before the Public at the time of PH.
•2011 Decision of Environmental Court challenged
before the Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment on 2013•

"Needless to say, if the BMP [Bauxite Mining Project], in any way, affects theirreligious rights, especially their right to worship their deity, known as Niyam Raja,in the hills top of the Niyamgiri range of hills, that right has to be preserved andprotected." (para 58)•59. The Gram Sabha [Village Council] is also free to consider all the community,
individual as well as cultural and religious claims, over and above the claims whichhave already been received from Rayagada and Kalahandi Districts. Any such fresh
claims be filed before the Gram Sabha within six weeks from the date of thisJudgment. State Government as well as the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Governmentof India, would assist the Gram Sabha for settling of individual as well as
community claims.

Result•All 12 Village Councils
rejected the proposal
unanimously stating that it
will affect their traditionalrights including cultural rights(August, 2013)•On January 2014, The
Government of India
accepted the people’s verdict
and rejected the proposal