Detailed Case Law Explanations for Both Parties
🔹 Cases Cited by the Petitioner
• MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987 & 1997)
This landmark series of cases led the Supreme Court to expand the scope of Article 21,
recognizing the right to a healthy environment as part of the fundamental right to life. In the
Oleum Gas Leak case (1987), the Court introduced the principle of absolute liability for
hazardous industries and emphasized the need for industries to operate without
endangering public health. Later cases led to directives for vehicular emission control,
closure of polluting industries, and introduction of CNG in Delhi, marking a milestone in
Indian environmental jurisprudence.
• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to enjoy
pollution-free water and air. The petitioner filed the writ alleging pollution by a paper mill,
and though the Court dismissed it due to lack of bona fide, it recognized the right to
pollution-free environment as enforceable under Article 21. The case is often cited for
affirming environmental quality as a justiciable issue before constitutional courts.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
In this case, the Court addressed the pollution caused by tanneries in Tamil Nadu and
ordered compensation and cleanup under the Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary
Principle, laying down their enforceability as part of Indian environmental law. The Court
emphasized that sustainable development must be the guiding principle for policy,
balancing environmental protection with economic growth. The case has become a
cornerstone for environmental PILs and regulatory action.
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
This case reinforced the Polluter Pays Principle, where chemical industries in Rajasthan
were held liable for polluting the environment. The Court directed the industries to
compensate affected villagers and fund the remediation of soil and water. The judgment
clarified that polluters cannot escape their responsibility by hiding behind procedural or
legal loopholes, thus reinforcing environmental accountability.
• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)
The Court in this case applied the Public Trust Doctrine, holding that the State holds natural
resources like rivers and forests in trust for the people and cannot permit their misuse for
private gain. It restrained private encroachments on riverbanks and affirmed that
environmental resources are public goods. This doctrine is often invoked when state
inaction enables environmental degradation, as in the Montaro case.
🔹 Cases Cited by the Respondent
• Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P. (2016)
The Supreme Court upheld that reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) on the freedom
to practice any profession (Article 19(1)(g)) are valid if they serve larger public interest.
While addressing regulation of private medical education, the Court emphasized balancing
individual freedom with public welfare, a principle the Respondents invoke to justify GRAP
regulations curbing pollution despite economic inconvenience.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997 onwards)
This series of forest conservation cases led the Supreme Court to take an active role in
environmental governance. However, the Court also emphasized harmonious coexistence of
development and conservation. The Respondents rely on this to argue that industrial
activity cannot be halted completely and must be allowed with proper safeguards and
regulation, not blanket bans.
• G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India (2013)
The case dealt with the challenge to the Kudankulam nuclear plant based on EIA and safety
concerns. The Supreme Court upheld the project, stating that EIA procedures, while
essential, are not infallible, and courts must respect the government's domain unless gross
illegality is shown. The Respondents rely on this to argue that procedural lapses in EIA
cannot automatically invalidate approvals without concrete harm.
• Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2016 – 2G Case)
Though primarily about spectrum allocation, this case reiterated the Public Trust Doctrine
and that natural resources should be allocated transparently and fairly. The Respondents
might invoke this to argue that there is no evidence of quid pro quo or corruption in
granting EIA clearances, distinguishing their case from this precedent.
• State of M.P. v. Kumudini (1998)
This case clarified the scope of locus standi, holding that a person not directly affected
cannot maintain a petition unless broader public interest is involved. The Respondents use
this to question Mr. Montaro’s standing under Article 32, as he is not personally harmed and
has no documented health injury.
