Environmental Democracy andthe Role of the Judiciary
Ritwick Dutta
Legal Initiative for Forest andEnvironment
New Delhi-India

Pre Rio Conference

Rio Declaration,
1992

National Green
Tribunal’s direction
on Public
participation

Public Hearing,
1994

PublicConsultation, 2006

The origin of Public Interest Litigationin Indian Jurisprudence
Article 21
Right to Life

Article 48 A
Duty of the State toProtect theEnvironment

Article 142‘Complete Justice’

Article 51 A (g)Duty of the Citizen

Article 226 andArticle 32
Writ of High Court
and Supreme Court‘Complete Justice’"This [Supreme Court] Court's power under
Article 142(1) to do 'complete justice' is entirelyof different level and of a different quality. Any
prohibition or restriction contained in ordinary
laws cannot act as a limitation on theconstitutional power of this Court.“Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat ,SCR (3) 936

1991 AIR 2176, 1991

Supreme Court

High Courts
National Green
Tribunal

District Courts(Criminal)

Appellate Authority
under the Air Act
and Water Act

District Courts(Civil)Supreme Court
Writ Petition
directly filed

Appeal against
High Court/National Green
Tribunal

Court on its own
Motion/ Sou Moto

Extraordinary Situation
The Supreme Court should not lie entrapped
within the confines of any of the relevant
statutes. ……The mechanism provided by anyof the statutes in question would be
ineffective in dealing with the extraordinary
situation
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya Vs State ofKarnataka (2013) 8 SCC 154

Limitation of Judicial Review inEnvironmental Case
It is true that the High Court and Supreme Court
have been taking upthese and other complex
environmental issues and deciding them. But, though
they are judicial bodies, they do not have anindependent statutory panel of environmental
scientists to help and advise them on a permanent
basis. They are prone to apply principles like theWednesbury Principle and refuse to go into themerits
186th Report of the Law Commissionn of India

Indian Environmental Court“THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL”

Jurisdiction
Appellate

Original

Compensation
and Damages

Appellate Jurisdiction in EIA
Appeal to theSupreme Court
Appeal before theNational Green
Tribunal
Approval of the Project [Grantof EC]
Public Consultation

Original Jurisdiction
The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all
substantial question relating to environment
including legal right to environment

Relief, Compensation• A person who has sustained an injury• A owner of property• Legal representative of deceased• Any person aggrieved including any representative
body or organisation

Appeal under Section 16• “Any person aggrieved” can prefer an Appeal• ‘Person’ includes an association of persons orindividuals whether incorporated or not• It also includes individuals, trusts, local
authority

Aggrieved Person Interpreted:
Save Mon Region Federation vs Union of India• “Law gives a right to 'any person' who is'aggrieved' by an order to prefer an appeal. It isto include all legal entities so as to enable themto prefer an appeal, even if such an entity does
not have any direct or indirect interest in agiven project.
• The framers of law intended to give the right toany person aggrieved, to prefer an appeal
without any limitation as regards his locus orinterest. The grievance of a person against theEnvironmental Clearance may be general andnot necessarily person specific”

Dheeru Power Gen,
Chattisgarh(Thermal PowerPlant)
Nayamjanchu,Arunchal Pradesh(Hydro ElectricProject)

POSCO, Orissa(Steel Plant)

SUBANSIRI,
Arunachal Pradesh(Hydro Electric)Jeet Singh Kanwar versus Union of India (NGT)APPEAL No. 10/2011 (T) 16TH APRIL, 2013

350 x 3 Coal
Fired Power
PlantsLocated inCritically
Polluted Area

Concerns
raised in
Public Hearing

Concealmentof information
in EIADeliberate concealment and/or
submission of false or misleading
information or data which ismaterial to screening or scoping orappraisal or decision on theapplication shall make theapplication liable for rejection, andcancellation of prior environmentalclearance granted on that basis.

There cannot be any doubt about the fact that
installation of such thermal power plant, basedon consumption of coal as fuel, would cause
additional pollution load in thesurrounding area.

The MoEF failed to anticipate probable ill impactof the project, in conjunction with the pollution
level caused due to the other projects alreadyexisting in the surrounding area.
economic interest shall be put in the backseat
when it is found that degradation of theenvironment would be long lasting andexcessive. It need not be reiterated t
Taking a stock of the forgoing discussion, wehave arrived at the conclusion that theimpugned order of the MoEF, granting EIA toset up the coal-based Thermal Power Plant isillegal and liable to be quashed. Needless tosay, the Appeal succeeds and must be allowed.

Samata Versus Union of India
NGT, December, 2013
• 660 x 3 MW Coal Fired Power Plant• Challenged before NGT• Appeal allowed. EIA Approval suspended.
Fresh study directed

The detailed scrutiny as required by thenotification in order to make an evaluation ofthe project has not been done since there isnothing to indicate in the minutes of themeeting that in respect of the issues raised at
the time of public hearing in respect of eachissue i

“It is not as if the Tribunal is not unmindful of the fact that theproposed project is a thermal power plant and if commissioned
the State would be relieved of the acute shortage of power when
it is noticed by the Tribunal that the EAC had not made proper
exercise by applying its mind to make a proper evaluation andthe same also remained unnoticed by the MoEF while granting
the EC for the project in question, taking into account the larger
interest of the nation from the point of view of ecology andenvironment, the Tribunal cannot give its nod either for the therecommendations made by the EAC or for the grant of EC madeby MoEF”

Name of Case and Project

Decision

GroundJeet Singh Kanwar versus
Union of India (Coal FiredPower Plant)

Cancellation of EIA Permit

Wrong Submission.
Concealment ofInformation

Adivasi Kisan Majdoor
Sanghatan versis Union ofIndia (Coal Mines)

Cancellation of EIA Permit

Faulty Public Hearing

Prafulla Samantray versus
Union of India (Posco SteelPlant)

Suspension of EIA Permit.
Fresh studies

Faulty EIA and Cumulative
StudiesT. Muruganndam Versus
Union of India (ThermalPower Plant)

Cancellation of EIA Permit

Wrong and Misleading dataon air quality

Save Mon Region
Federation (Hydro Powerplant)

Suspension of EIA Permit
and fresh Public Hearing

Wrong and MiseleadingdataName of case/ Project

Decision

GroundDeboaditya Sinha versus
Union of India (Coal FiredPower Plant)

Cancellation of EIA Permit

False information. Faulty
Public hearing

Bimal Gogoi versus Unionof India (Hydro PowerProject)

Suspension of permit.

False information

Tularam Gogoi Versus
Union of India (HydroPower Project)

Suspension of permit

Non Compliance

Gau Raxa Hit Raxa Pauchav
Trust Versus Union of India(Port Project)

Suspension of permit

Faulty Public Hearing

Sreeranganathan Versus
Union of India(International Airport)

Cancellation of permit

False data