India

CRIN would like to express our profound gratitude to our external reviewer, Dr. Hemavathi S Shekhar, Founder and Director of the Enact Earth Foundation, for their insightful comments on a draft of this report. CRIN also sent a draft version to the State for feedback and any comments received were taken into account in finalising the report. Any errors or inaccuracies remaining in the report are CRIN’s.

This report is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. CRIN does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on information in this report. CRIN encourages personal and educational use of this publication and grants permission for its reproduction in this capacity where proper credit is given in good faith.

All CRIN content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 licence. No material produced by CRIN may be modified unless consent is given in writing. No material produced by CRIN may be re-used for commercial gain unless consent is given in writing.

I. National legal protections

A. Are environmental rights protected within the national constitution?

Pursuant to Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution, citizens are under a duty to “protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures”.1 Moreover, Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life.2 Further, Article 48A, Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy (“DPSP”)) of the Constitution provides that the State “shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”3 It should be noted, however, that DPSP are guidelines and do not have the force of law.4

No environmental provisions within the Indian Constitution are specific to children. There is a more general provision specifically protecting children in Article 39(f) of Part IV (DPSP), providing that “the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.”5


B. Have constitutional rights protections been applied by national courts with regards to environmental issues?

In India, there are numerous instances where constitutional rights protections have been applied by national courts with regards to environmental issues. Some examples are:

  • Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621) (Supreme Court).6 The courts established a framework for the generations to come to pursue their fundamental rights, whether or not they were specifically stated in part III of the constitution, by providing a broad interpretation to Maneka Gandhi.7 Thus, although not related to environmental issues, this case set up the groundwork for linking a right to a healthy environment to the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that any State action interfering with the rights protected by Article 21 had to be “right, just and fair.”
  • Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 2187) (Supreme Court).8 The applicants provided information regarding unauthorised and illicit mining in the Missouri-Dehradun belt, which was treated by the court as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The surrounding area's ecology suffered as a result of the mining, which contributed to the environmental problem. The Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation, which was deemed illegal mining, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The court directed the Central and State Governments to take the necessary steps to prevent illegal mining and to ensure reforestation in the area of mining. The court held that the decision would “undoubtedly cause hardship to [the quarry owners] but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and the environment.”
  • Lk Koolwal vs. State of Rajasthan and ORS (AIR 1988 Raj.2) (High Court of Rajasthan).9 The applicant filed a writ petition, requesting that the court order the State to fulfil its mandate in relation to Jaipur's severe sanitation crisis, which was described as endangering the lives of Jaipur residents. The Court held that, since failure to maintain cleanliness, health, and the environment negatively impacted residents' lives (by slow poisoning and shortening life expectancy), these matters fell under the jurisdiction of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court decided that the municipality had a legal obligation to clean up the dirt from the city within six months of the ruling, and to declare Jaipur clean as of that date. A committee was established to oversee the execution of the ruling.
  • Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5) (Supreme Court).10 This case dealt with the discharge of industrial pollution into a river. The Supreme Court held that the “enjoyment of pollution free water and air” falls within the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (right to life). It further held that individuals have a right to a remedy for environmental pollution, including “removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”
  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 4016) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 (Delhi Ridge case) (Supreme Court).11 The Supreme Court held that regulatory authorities have a duty to protect the environment from impacting on the right to life and, when they fall short of such duty, they should be held accountable for restoration and compensation.12 The court ordered the National Capital Territory of Delhi to declare the Delhi ridge a “Reserved Forest” to save it from destruction after mining activities were resulting in soil erosion and causing an ecological disaster.
  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 1086) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12739 of 1985 (Shriram Food Fertilizer case/oleum gas leak case) (Supreme Court).13 A writ petition was filed in this instance in accordance with Articles 12, 21 and 32 of the Constitution following an oleum gas leak from one of Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries' factories. The court ruled that in addition to providing directions, Article 32 allows the court to create new remedies and methods for upholding basic rights. The power under Article 32 is not confined to preventive measures when fundamental rights are threatened to be violated but it also extends to remedial measures when the rights are already violated. The court held that it could offer corrective action, when necessary, particularly in circumstances where a flagrant and widespread infringement of fundamental rights had a negative and backward impact on a significant number of people. "Absolute liability" and compensation for all those affected by an accident were introduced by the court for the first time. This case is regarded as one of the turning points in the positive influence that Indian laws and environmental conditions have had as it had a significant impact on both.
  • Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577 (Supreme Court).14 The applicants filed a writ petition alleging that the State of Haryana had failed to control environmental pollution, thereby violating their fundamental rights. The central issue before the Supreme Court of India was whether the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Court held that Article 21 extends beyond mere existence and encompasses the right to live with dignity in a clean and hygienic environment. It observed that environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, directly threatens human life and dignity. Consequently, a healthy environment was recognised as an essential component of the right to life. The Court further ruled that the State has a fundamental duty to maintain ecological balance and prevent environmental harm. Any failure or negligence leading to pollution would amount to a violation of Article 21. Accordingly, the Court directed the State of Haryana to take immediate and effective measures to control pollution and improve environmental conditions. The judgment affirmed the enforceability of environmental rights and significantly strengthened environmental jurisprudence in India, promoting stricter laws and sustainable development policies.
  • M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 and with Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022 (March 21, 2024) (Supreme Court).15 The petition was filed under Article 32 by a conservationist seeking protection for endangered species, threatened by habitat loss, climate change, and collisions with power lines. The key issue before the Supreme Court of India was how to balance species conservation with India’s renewable energy commitments. The Court held that protection from the adverse effects of climate change is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It recognised that environmental harm and climate change threaten both the right to life and equality, especially for vulnerable populations. Applying the principle of sustainable development, the Court emphasised the need to reconcile ecological preservation with infrastructural growth. It ruled that the State has a constitutional duty to protect endangered species while pursuing climate goals. The judgment established a significant precedent by formally recognising the “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” and reinforcing judicial authority to enforce environmental protection, while promoting a balanced approach to development and biodiversity conservation.

C. Has the concept of intergenerational equity been applied within national courts? If yes, in what circumstances?

Indian courts have referred to the concept of intergenerational equity in some instances, including:

  • State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products (1995) (6 SCC 363, 382), on the continued availability of wood from Khari trees:16 The Industrial Projects Approval and Review Authority (IPARA), whose functions include receiving all applications for the establishment of factories in the medium and large-scale sector and processing applications for the establishment of new industries and selecting projects for approval by the Government, received applications from entrepreneurs proposing establishment of 15 industrial units in Himachal Pradesh for manufacturing katha (wood) and granted approval to all of them.17 The Court ruled that this was “contrary to public interest involved in preserving forest wealth, maintenance of environment and ecology and considerations of sustainable growth and inter-generational equity. Afterall, the present generation has no right to deplete all the existing forests and leave nothing for the next and future generations.”18 The concept of intergenerational equality was brought into Indian jurisprudence with this ruling.

  • Glanrock Estate v State of Tamil Nadu WP(c) 242 of 198819 and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India WP(c) 2020 of 1995),20 on the preservation of forests:

    Glanrock Estate v State of Tamil Nadu concerned the validity of the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 by which the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, was included in the 9th Schedule under Article 31-B of the Constitution. The Court held that intergenerational equity is a principle that stems from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: (right to life):

    “[...]it has been held that "inter-generational equity" is part of Article 21 of the Constitution. What is inter-generational equity? The present generation is answerable to the next generation by giving to the next generation a good environment. We are answerable to the next generation and if deforestation takes place rampantly then inter-generational equity would stand violated. The doctrine of sustainable development also forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The "precautionary principle" and the "polluter pays principle" flow from the core value in Article 21. The important point to be noted is that in this case we are concerned with vesting of forests in the State. When we talk about inter-generational equity and sustainable development, we are elevating an ordinary principle of equality to the level of over- arching principle. Equality doctrine has various facets. It is in this sense that in I.R. Coelho's case this Court has read Article 21 with Article 14. The above example indicates that when it comes to preservation of forests as well as environment vis-à-vis development, one has to look at the constitutional amendment not from the point of view of formal equality or equality enshrined in Article 14 but on a much wider platform of an egalitarian equality which includes the concept of "inclusive growth". It is in that sense that this Court has used the expression Article 21 read with Article 14 in I.R. Coelho's case.”

    In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India, the applicant filed a petition to stop illegal logging operations that were destroying the sandalwood forest and endangering the survival of the species.21 The applicant was granted a favourable ruling by the court that directed the forest's sustainable use.22 With regards to intergenerational equity the court held:

    “The principle of sustainable development and inter-generational equity too pre-supposes the higher needs of humans and lays down that exploitation of natural resources must be equitably distributed between the present and future generations. Environmental ethics behind those principles were human need and exploitation, but such principles have no role to play when we are called upon to decide the fate of an endangered species or the need to protect the same irrespective of its instrumental value.”23

    “Anthropocentrism considers humans to be the most important factor and value in the universe and states that humans have greater intrinsic value than other species. Resultantly, any species that are of potential use to humans can be a reserve to be exploited which leads to the point of extinction of biological reserves. Further, that principle highlights human obligations towards environment arising out instrumental, educational, scientific, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values that forests have to offer to humans. Under this approach, environment is only protected as a consequence of and to the extent needed to protect human well being. On the other hand ecocentric approach to environment stress the moral imperatives to respect intrinsic value, inter dependence and integrity of all forms of life. Ecocentrism supports the protection of all life forms, not just those which are of value to humans or their needs and underlines the fact that humans are just one among the various life forms on earth.”24

  • S Jagannath v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87, 146, on the preservation of India’s coastal environment:25 The petitioner requested the establishment of a National Coastal Management Authority to protect coastal areas and marine life, the enforcement of a government of India notification on coastal zone regulations, the cessation of intensive and semi-intensive prawn farming in ecologically sensitive coastal areas, and the prohibition of using wetlands for prawn farming. The Court held, among others, that: (i) environment and development had to be the industry's guiding principles as it developed; (ii) before approving the installation of commercial prawn farms, an environmental impact assessment that considered the social impact on the various demographic groups in the area was required; and (iii) intergenerational equity and compensation for impacted and disadvantaged parties had to be considered.
  • A. P. Pollution Control Board v Prof. M. V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718, on water pollution:26 The court examined whether a proposed project for production of B.S.S. Castor oil derivatives would be polluting. The court referred to the duty of the present generation towards prosperity and noted that:

    “Several international conventions and treaties have recognised the [principle of inter-generational equity] and in fact several imaginative proposals have been submitted including -the locus standi of individuals or groups to take out actions as representatives of future generations, or appointing Ombudsman to take care of the rights of the future against the present.”

  • Goa Foundation v Union of India WP(c) 435 of 2012 (Goa mining case), on iron ore mining:27 This case challenged the validity of mining leases granted by the state government of Goa to a number of mining companies for the extraction of iron ore. Goa Foundation (the applicant) raised the issue of intergenerational equity in its petition, including by submitting a detailed note on the legal aspects of intergenerational equity. Goa Foundation contended that the mining operations had permanently harmed the environment, with long-term effects on future generations. The Supreme court ordered a study to be conducted by a commission of experts “on what should be the ceiling of annual excavation of iron ore from the State of Goa considering its Iron Ore resources and its carrying capacity keeping in mind the principles of sustainable development and inter-generational equity and all other relevant factors.” Because of the case's importance in the context of environmental protection and sustainable development, it attracted considerable attention.

    In 2017, Ridhima Pandey, a child, filed a claim before the National Green Tribunal claiming that increased action to slow down climate change was required by the Public Trust Doctrine, India's obligations under the Paris Agreement, and India's current environmental laws and regulations.28 It further contended that the word “environment” as defined in the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 comprises climate. The applicant argued that she, along with all children and future generations, had the right to a healthy environment under the principle of intergenerational equity. She also argued that climate change affects children disproportionately, as they were more vulnerable to some of its impacts such as heat waves, displacement, diseases, and malnutrition. She claimed that since climate was an intrinsic component of the environment, combating climate change required preserving the environment and the forests. However, the case was dismissed on the grounds that climate change is already covered in the process of impact assessments under the Environment Protection Act of 1986 and thus, "there is no reason to presume that Paris Agreement and other international protocols are not reflected in the policies of the Government of India or are not taken into consideration in granting environment clearances." The court decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and is pending resolution.

    It should be noted that, in 1988, India hosted the meeting that led to the publication of the Goa Guidelines on Intergenerational Equity.29


D. What legislation is in place to regulate environmental protection? Are there any proposals for legal reforms currently under review in the national legislature?

In India, the legal framework governing climate protection operates within the constitutional distribution of legislative powers under the Constitution of India, which divides authority between the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists.30 The Union List empowers the Central Government to legislate on matters such as international agreements and several sectors central to climate governance, including inter-State trade and commerce, regulation of certain industries, mines and minerals and atomic energy, enabling it to undertake obligations under instruments like the Paris Agreement.31 The State List assigns responsibility for areas such as agriculture, water, land and local governance to State Governments, which are critical for climate adaptation at the local level.32 At the same time, the Concurrent List allows both Parliament and State Legislatures to enact laws relating to forests and the protection of wild animals and birds.33

The following are the main pieces of legislation currently in force:

  • The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, aims at controlling poaching, smuggling and illegal trade in wildlife.34
  • The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, provides for the prevention and control of water pollution, the restoration of water and established local boards to oversee compliance.35
  • The Forest Conservation Act, 1980, aims at regulating the de-reservation of forests or use of forestland for non-forest purposes.36
  • The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, provides for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution and established local boards to oversee compliance.37
  • The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, implements the goals set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992.38 In particular, the Act seeks to conserve biological diversity, promote the sustainable use of its components, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated knowledge. The Act also established a National Biodiversity Authority.
  • The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 established a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection.39
  • The Environment Protection Act, 1986, It is an umbrella piece of legislation, which sets out a framework for the protection and improvement of the environment.40 In the Act, “environment” is defined widely, covering water, air and land as well as the interaction between them and with human beings, other organisms including animals and plants, and property.
  • The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, lay down standards for emissions, discharges, and environmental quality under the Environment Protection Act 1986.41
  • The EIA Notification, 2006, mandates prior environmental clearance for specified projects based on environmental impact assessments.42
  • The Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, regulate the segregation, collection, processing, and disposal of solid waste to ensure scientific waste management.43
  • The Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (amended 2022), govern the manufacture, use, and disposal of plastic waste, introducing extended producer responsibility.44
  • The E-Waste Management Rules, 2016 (amended 2022), provide for environmentally sound management of electronic waste with producer responsibility obligations.45
  • The Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, regulate the handling, treatment, and disposal of biomedical waste generated by healthcare facilities.46
  • The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, control the generation, handling and cross-border movement of hazardous waste.47
  • The Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, provide for proper collection, recycling, and disposal of construction and demolition waste.48
  • The Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022, establish a framework for safe disposal and recycling of batteries through extended producer responsibility.49
  • The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989, regulate the handling and storage of hazardous chemicals to prevent industrial accidents.50
  • The Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996, provide mechanisms for emergency planning and response to chemical accidents.51
  • The Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms, 1989, regulate activities involving hazardous microorganisms to prevent risks to health and environment.52
  • The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, prescribe standards and controls to regulate noise pollution and protect public health.53
  • The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 (amended 2019), regulates activities in coastal areas to protect coastal ecosystems and livelihoods.54
  • The Eco-Sensitive Zone Notifications designate buffer areas around protected regions to restrict activities harmful to ecosystems.55
  • The Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, regulate production and use of ozone-depleting substances in line with international obligations.56
  • The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, provide for the protection, conservation, and sustainable management of wetlands.57
Major recent amendments on environmental law in India are:

  • Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act (FCA), 2023:58 The main amendment to the FCA is the exclusion of certain land types from its provisions. These include roadside amenities up to a maximum size of 0.10 hectares, forestland adjacent to a rail line, and government-maintained public roadways that provide access to a habitation or a train. Previously, state governments could not transfer forestland to entities that were not under their ownership or control without first receiving permission from the federal government. The amendment makes this provision applicable to all entities, including those that the government owns and controls. It also removes restrictions from the FCA, allowing for the creation of infrastructure on the outskirts of the forests.

    A writ petition was filed in 2023 before the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of this amendment, claiming that India's long-standing forest governance system was seriously threatened by the FCA Amendment Act.59 The modification, according to the petition, permits unrestricted land diversion without a cumulative national limit, which might result in the formation of deforested areas that could split forests and cause significant ecological harm. It is important to remember that, according to the amendments, forestland up to 10 hectares is exempt from assessment under the FCA when it is suggested to build "security-related infrastructure," but it is unclear exactly what falls under this category.

  • Biodiversity (BD) (Amendment) Act, 2023:60 Among others, it: (i) simplifies patent applications for research, supports the use of indigenous medicine and fosters the growth of wild medicinal plants, (ii) broadens the range of people and entities that must obtain National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval prior to obtaining biological resources or filing an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) application and (iii) makes changes to the IPR approval procedure, requiring consent prior to the grant of IPR as opposed to prior to application (while foreign companies still need the NBA’s approval, domestic companies only need registration). It is important to note that the BD Amendment Act decriminalised offences under the BD Act, replacing imprisonment with penalties ranging from INR 100,000 to INR 50 million (to be determined on a case-to-case basis).

In Residents Welfare Association & Another v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) & Others (2023) 8 SCC 643, the Supreme Court ruled that it is now imperative that the Union and State, legislative and executive branch and policy-makers, recognise the harm that inconsistent developments are causing to the environment and take the appropriate action to prevent further harm.61 The court recalled that environmental preservation and sustainable growth needed to be balanced appropriately.62 The court advised that before approving urban growth, all State branches make sure that the appropriate measures were in place for conducting Environmental Impact Assessments.63 Environmental Impact Assessments are now only necessary for specific types of development projects.

The Supreme Court, in Re: TN Godavarman v Union of India (2024), expanded its earlier ruling of prohibiting mining within National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries (i.e., Prohibited Areas) to prohibit mining within an area of one km from the boundary of the Protected Area, in order to ensure the conservation of the flora and fauna in Eco Sensitive Zones and Protected Areas from rapid mining.64

The National Green Tribunal ordered the establishment of a committee to develop policies and strategies to safeguard submerged islands from the effects of rising sea levels and global warming after taking suo motu cognisance of the issue.65


E. Is there any specific national policy addressing childhood exposure to toxic substances? If so, what is considered a safe level of exposure and what is the process for determining safe levels of exposure?

No national policy addressing specifically childhood exposure to toxic substances could be identified.

Sections 6 and 25 of the EPA empower the Central Government to fix standards for air, water and soil quality and regulate hazardous substances.66 All standards for toxicity in various mediums in the environment are set under this. The aim is to ensure that concentration levels stay low enough to prevent harmful exposure, including for children. Some examples of this are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules.67

Since 1991, the Public Liability Insurance Act has been in place to provide for damages to victims of an accident which occurs as a result of handling any hazardous substance.68 This Act applies to “all owners associated with the production or handling of any hazardous chemicals”.69


F. Is the country equipped with pollutant release and transfer registers?

India appears not to have established a pollutant release and transfer register.


G. Does the State assert extra-territorial jurisdiction for any environmental issues?

Legal provisions expressly granting India the power to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction over environmental issues could not be identified.

However, it should be noted that Article 245(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no law “shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extraterritorial operation.” Further, in GVK Industries Ltd. v Income Tax Officer (2011) 4SCC 36, the Supreme Court held that extraterritorial laws are valid only to the extent that they have a nexus to India.70 Thus, for example, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, applies to offences committed by Indian citizens outside India and any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.71

While there does not appear to be a comprehensive framework expressly asserting extra-territorial environmental jurisdiction, certain Indian environmental and trade-related regulatory regimes address extra-territorial environmental harms and cross-border movement of regulated materials. For example, the E-Waste (Management) Rules regulate the import of electronic waste into India and seek to prevent unlawful dumping and environmentally harmful disposal practices.72

 
 

II. Accessing courts

A. How can environmental cases be brought before national courts?

Environmental cases can be brought before the courts through public interest litigations, by which individuals exercise their constitutional right to a healthy environment before the High Courts or the Supreme Court.73 This constitutional right is provided for by Article 32 of the Indian Constitution which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for infringement of a fundamental right.74 Additionally, the common law principle of public nuisance, as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, offers a legal basis for bringing before courts cases related to environmental harm.75 In order to initiate a public nuisance case as a civil wrong, Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically requires at least two persons to be affected.76 Act 104 of 1976 to the Code of Civil Procedure increased the public’s accessibility to courts by allowing them to sue “with the leave of the court” in cases of public nuisance or other harmful acts affecting the public.77 In cases where a large number of persons are affected, such as in toxic torts, plaintiffs may file a class action suit. This was introduced following the Bhopal disaster in 1984, which resulted in over 2,500 immediate deaths and 200,000 injured.78

The National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) was established in 2010 to act as the sole specialised environmental court which has civil and administrative jurisdiction to hear cases relating to seven environmental legislations:

(i) the Water Act;
(ii) the Water Cess Act;
(iii) the Forest Act;
(iv) the Air Act;
(v) the Environment Act;
(vi) the Public Liability Insurance Act and
(vii) the Biological Diversity Act.79

Any violations of the aforementioned laws or any order/decision taken by the government under these laws can be brought before the NGT.80 The NGT is composed of the principal bench based in New Delhi and circuit benches in Chennai, Bhopal, Pune and Kolkata.81 To bring a case before the NGT, plaintiffs must be prepared to pay a fee. In cases where no claim for compensation is involved, there is a mandatory fee of Rs. 1,000.82 Where compensation is being claimed, the fee will be 1% of the amount of compensation subject to a Rs. 1,000 minimum.83 Claims for compensation can be made for:84

(i) “relief/compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage including accidents involving hazardous substances;
(ii) restitution of property damaged;
(iii) restitution of the environment for such areas as determined by the NGT.”

Applications for compensation, relief or restitution of property or environment will only be received if made within a maximum period of five years from the date on which the cause for the compensation being claimed first arose.85 Under Rule 22 of the NGT Practice / Procedure Rules, one can seek a review of an order/decision of the NGT.86 If unsuccessful, an NGT Order can be challenged before the Supreme Court within ninety days.87 The NGT applies principles of international environmental law, such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle when passing orders/decisions/awards to determine compensation, relief and restoration of the environment.88 Moreover, the NGT may order costs, including compensation for loss or damage caused by an interim injunction, if it determines that a claim is false or made for the purpose of delaying proceedings.89

The jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal is limited to matters arising under the enactments specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.90 Since the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927 are not included in Schedule I, disputes arising exclusively under those statutes generally cannot be adjudicated by the NGT and are ordinarily pursued before the High Courts or the Supreme Court through constitutional writ proceedings, or before competent civil courts having territorial jurisdiction.91 However, the NGT may exercise jurisdiction where disputes involving forests or wildlife also arise under statutes included in Schedule I, such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.92 93


B. What rules of standing apply in environmental cases?

A more relaxed set of standing rules applies to Indian citizens who wish to bring cases related to environmental harm. Complaints can be filed through the simple means of a letter, and a lawyer is not required.94 In addition, a letter requesting writ can be addressed to any individual justice.95 Through their constitutional right to a healthy environment, citizens can enforce environmental laws before the Supreme Court and the High Courts.96 Prior to filing a complaint, citizens must give 60 days of advance notice to the government.97 Citizens appear before specially assigned judges, known as “green benches” (the circuit benches of the NGT, see above).98

Third parties can file a suit on behalf of the aggrieved persons, even if they have not suffered any harm themselves.99 Representative standing allows individuals to file claims “on behalf of someone who cannot approach the court themselves for reasons of poverty, disability, inability, or social or economic disadvantage” and “in their own rights as a member of the citizenry to whom a public duty is owed”.100 Citizen standing allows individuals to file claims “that are so diffuse and commonly shared that no individual legal rights would otherwise be sufficiently infringed upon” and they “no longer have to suffer a personal injury to bring a claim for something they feel aggrieved by.”101

Since the NGT is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the rules of evidence of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, it is more accessible than other courts for conservation groups wishing to raise environmental issues.102

Enlargement of access to environmental justice through development of public interest litigation by the Supreme Court has given increased opportunities to NGOs and civil society to approach the court in public interest cases where the aggrieved persons were disadvantaged or difficult to determine.103

The courts have expanded the principle of locus standi by declaring that “any member of the public acting bona fide can maintain an action for redress where a public wrong or injury is caused by the state.”104 This expansion has been significantly used by environmental groups and individuals seeking compensation for environmental damage through reliance on Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.105


C. Do these rules of standing differ when children are the complainants and if so in what way?

India does not establish a separate regime of standing for children in environmental matters. Article 14 protects “any person,” not only adults, and Article 21 protects the life and personal liberty of “any person.”106

However, children lack full procedural capacity to sue independently. Order XXXII, Rule 1 provides that every suit by a minor shall be instituted in the child’s name by a “next friend.”107 Rules 3 and 4 require the court to appoint a proper person as guardian for the suit when the defendant is a child whose interest is not adverse to the child’s.108

The Supreme Court has accepted that where a legal wrong affects persons or classes unable to approach the court because of poverty, disability, helplessness or social or economic disadvantage, a public-spirited person may seek relief under Articles 226 or 32.109 Public-interest proceedings may also be initiated informally, including by letter.

Before the National Green Tribunal, Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act allows applications for relief, compensation or settlement of disputes not only by directly injured persons and property owners, but also by an authorised agent and by “any person aggrieved, including any representative body or organisation.”110 Section 19 then provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the CPC or the Indian Evidence Act and may regulate its own procedure.111 The NGT (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 add that an application or appeal under section 18 is to be presented by the applicant in person, by an agent or by a duly authorised legal practitioner.112

Nine-year-old Ridhima Pandey, through an adult, filed a petition to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2017, accusing the Indian government of neglecting to take climate change seriously (see Part I.C.).113 Children can thus bring environmental cases with the support of an adult.


D. What is the burden and standard of proof for allegations of personal injury as a result of toxic exposure?

Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 states that “[w]hoever desires any Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of fact which he asserts, must prove those facts exist.”114 Additionally, Section 102 expands on the burden of proof to affirm that it “lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either.”115 In the majority of cases the burden of proof for allegations of personal injury will rest upon the claimant. However, there are two main exceptions: if the defendant has (i) received a criminal conviction or (ii) if there is an inference of negligence, known as res ipsa loquitur (‘the thing speaks for itself’), the court may reverse the burden of proof and instead request the defendant to prove that there was no negligence.116 In A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (see Part I.C), the inability of science to appropriately determine the impact of environmental harm resulted in the reinforcement of the precautionary principle and in a new rule of burden of proof applicable to environmental cases “where burden as to the absence of injurious effects of the actions proposed is placed on those who want to change the status quo” (i.e., the person or entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment).117 The required standard of proof to dismiss this burden is by demonstrating a “‘reasonable ecological or medical concern’” and in the case of insufficient evidence “to alleviate concern about the level of uncertainty” the presumption should support environmental protection.118 Assessing the risk of environmental damage or harm to human health must be decided in the interest of the public according to a “reasonable persons’ test”.119

Tort law may be applied to cases of toxic exposure resulting in personal injury.120 Under tort law, there are four main principles of liability under which standards of proof can be determined: nuisance, negligence, strict liability and trespass.121 The standard of proof for nuisance requires the plaintiff to establish a causal link between the pollutant and the injury. In cases of negligence, the plaintiff must show “the defendant was under a duty to take reasonable care to avoid the damage complained”, that there was a breach of duty, or “the consequential damage which must have been factually caused by breach of duty and must be reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the breach.”122 To prove the tort of trespass, there must be intentional interference and this must be direct rather than consequential (e.g., a deliberate placement of waste).123 Lastly, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (see part I.C.), a case involving the leakage of oleum gas causing death and serious injury, the Supreme Court invoked a new rule of absolute (rather than strict) liability for harm caused by dangerous substances:

“an enterprise, which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Flet.” 124

India’s most significant case involving toxic exposure, Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, is also known as the Bhopal disaster.125 The case involved the leakage of toxic gases from the defendant’s factory, which produced such catastrophic effects on the residents of Bhopal that the event has been coined as one of the world’s worst industrial disasters.126 When brought before the Indian courts in 1988, the principle of absolute liability was invoked to hold Union Carbide Corporation responsible for personal injuries of the victims.127 The case was ultimately settled due to jurisdictional issues.


E. What limitation periods apply in environmental cases?

The NGT applies specific limitation periods for filing an appeal. Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“NGT Act”) states that an appeal may be brought to the Tribunal within a maximum of 30 days from the date on which the order/decision/direction is communicated to the aggrieved person.128 Beyond this period, the Tribunal may allow an additional period not exceeding 60 days if the plaintiff demonstrates sufficient cause explaining the delay.129 The limitation period in Section 14 of the NGT Act permits plaintiffs to apply for adjudication of dispute within a maximum period of six months after the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first began.130 This limitation period may be extended for a further maximum of 60 days if the Tribunal deems that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an application within the said period.131

With respect to compensation, relief or restitution of property or environment, the Tribunal sets the limitation period to five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation, relief or restitution first arose.132 This limitation period may be extended for a further maximum period of 60 days if the Tribunal deems that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an application in a timely manner.133

Under Section 22 of the NGT Act, any person aggrieved by the award, decision or order of the Tribunal may appeal to the Supreme Court within 90 days from the date of the communication of the award, decision or order.134 If the Supreme Court is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the limitation period, the appeal may be entertained after such expiry.135

NGT case law has drawn a distinction between the moment when a cause of action first arises and situations involving a continuing, recurring or successive cause of action. In Doaba Paryavaran Samiti v. Union of India the Court explained that “cause of action first arose” refers to a definite point in time when the elements of the environmental dispute are complete, even though later factual developments may continue.136 The Court also argued that a court must distinguish between the continuance of the legal injury and the continuance of its injurious effects.137 If the wrongful act is complete, the fact that its effects continue does not automatically extend the limitation period indefinitely. By contrast, each renewed breach may generate a new cause of action.138

An issue here is that in some environmental cases such as toxic tort cases involving hazardous substances, an immediate injury may not be produced i.e., damage to health may appear only years after exposure, which renders problematic the statutes for limitations.139


F. Is legal aid available in environmental cases? If so, under what circumstances?

There appears not to be any legal aid specifically allocated to environmental cases. However, an applicant should benefit from legal aid also in environmental cases under Article 39A of the Indian Constitution. Article 39A states that “[t]he State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.” 140

Additionally, Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 stipulates the groups of society that are entitled to free legal aid, which include:141

(i) women or children;
(ii) “a person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster”; or
(iii) “a person in receipt of annual income less than the amount mentioned in the following schedule (or any other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government), if the case is before a Court other than the Supreme Court, and less than Rs 5 Lakh, if the case is before the Supreme Court”.

There is no restriction to what kind of cases legal aid can be applied for, thus permitting any individual who qualifies under Section 12 to receive legal aid.142 As specified under Section 2 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, the nature of the legal services offered involves “any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding before any court or other Authority or tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter.” 143

The provision of free legal aid may consist of:144

(i) representation by an Advocate in legal proceedings;
(ii) payment of process fees, expenses of witnesses and all other charges payable or incurred in connection with any legal proceedings in appropriate cases;
(iii) preparation of pleadings, memo of appeal, paper book including printing and translation of documents in legal proceedings;
(iv) drafting of legal documents, special leave petition etc.;
(v) supply of certified copies of judgments, orders, notes of evidence and other documents in legal proceedings.
 
 

III. Remedies

A. What remedies are courts empowered to impose in environmental cases?

The remedies available in India for environmental protection consist of tortious remedies developed through the common law and statutory law remedies that are created by statute.

Common Law Actions

The tortuous remedies flow from the particular action a claimant brings before the court. The available actions under common law are as follows:

  • Nuisance: meaning an unlawful interference with one's enjoyment of land or any right arising from it, thereto.
  • Negligence: Meaning a successful negligence claim requires a claimant to establish a direct cause between negligence and the damage caused. Another method of establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove that the respondent did not take sufficient care to avoid public nuisance that the respondent was required to take under the law.
  • Strict liability: Strict liability developed from the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.145 This ruling established that "the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes, must keep it in at his own peril and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape".146
  • Absolute liability: The Supreme Court has developed absolute liability for hazardous or inherently dangerous activities.147 This liability extends not only to compensating victims but also to bearing the cost of restoring environmental damage.148
  • Trespass: meaning an unlawful interference with another's possession of property. This requires establishing that there has been an intentional invasion of another's physical possession of property.

Common Law Remedies149

  • Damages: the court may award monetary relief to the affected party of a tort. These can be:
    (i) substantive damages, which are awarded for the loss, injury and inconvenience suffered;
    (ii) exemplary damages, which are awarded as punishment and deterrent for outrageous conduct on the part of the wrongdoer; or
    (iii) nominal damages, which are awarded purely symbolically or as a token of punishment to the wrongdoer.
  • Injunctions: the courts have discretion to issue orders restraining the commission, repetition or continuation of a wrongful act of the defendant. This remedy can be awarded either continuously or temporarily. Here, the courts will take into account the relative economic consequences that will arise from granting an injunction, the good faith or intentional misconduct of the parties and the public interest.

Statutory Remedies150

Seeking redress for environmental wrongs under common law (like any civil action) is often expensive, lengthy and highly technical. As a result, Parliament has provided special statutory channels to redress in certain types of environmental cases. The statutory remedies include imprisonment, or a fine, or an order or direction arising from the following actions:

(i) an action brought under Section 19 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986;
(ii) an action under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023);151
(iii) an activity brought under Section 268 for public nuisance, under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023);152
(iv) an action brought under Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (amended in 1988); and
(v) an action brought under Section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Chapter VI Penalties and Procedure).

Apart from the above, a writ petition can be filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court of India or under Article 226 in the High Court.153 Under Article 32 (2) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari.154 The language used in Article 32 (2) is wide and it provides the court with jurisdiction to take any direction, order or writ, to enforce or protect fundamental rights, including environmental protection.155

The Public Liability Insurance Act (“PLIA”) covers hazardous substances and insurance coverage for these, where an accident results in death or injury.156 The PLIA makes the responsible party liable to provide the relief specified in the “the Schedule” of the PLIA.157 It also authorised the establishment of the Environmental Relief Fund, for making relief payments.158 The fund consists of contributions from hazardous industries that opt for insurance as well as compensation awarded by the NGT (see below) for damage to the environment.

The NGT Act provides for the establishment of a specialised judicial court (the NGT) to handle the “expeditious disposal of civil cases” relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests due to the technical expertise and continuous monitoring these cases require.159 An application before the National Green Tribunal may be filed by an aggrieved person, including individuals, organisations, or environmental groups whose legal or environmental interests are affected.160 The Tribunal therefore provides an avenue for environmental interest groups and affected persons to seek remedies relating to environmental protection and conservation.161 The NGT has the power to cancel an approval or consent granted. Its powers also include the ability to issue a stop work notice or an interim stay order. It can direct the constitution of a committee of experts to carry out fact-finding or monitor the implementation of its orders; and direct concerned government agencies to take affirmative action to prevent or mitigate environmental damage.162 The NGT may order payment of compensation to victims of environmental damage or an environmental restoration fine to a government agency for compensation of environmental damages. The decision of the NGT is binding on the parties unless the Supreme Court, in appeal, stays or reverses the order. Failure to comply with the NGT’s orders can lead to a fine or imprisonment.


B. What remedies have courts ordered in environmental cases to date?

Since 1985, the majority of the environment cases in India have been brought before the courts as writ petitions, usually by individuals acting on a pro bono basis. Landmark judgments include:163

  • Andhra Pradesh Polluting Industries Case (Supreme Court).164 People living in the 14 nearby villages of Nakka Vagu relied on the fresh water stream for irrigation and drinking. The stream became a massive drain conveying industrial effluents when 250 companies were established in defiance of the requirement to set up water treatment units. The Supreme Court ordered that twenty million dollars should be given to farmers who lost animals and crops as a result of air and water pollution. The Court also held that the establishment of pollution control devices by the polluting industries had to be observed by the government.

  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 4016) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 (Delhi Ridge case) (Supreme Court) (See Part I.B. above).

  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1987 (Supp) SCC 607) (Gamma Chamber Case) (Supreme Court).165 This public interest litigation was filed in the Apex Court against the hazardous radiation on students and the teachers emitted from the gamma chamber put up for the purpose of conducting research works in the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The Court ordered that the Gamma Chambers be sent to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Bombay for recharging. They were only to be rehoused at the original location if it was confirmed that the radiation level had dropped down within the acceptable limits following this procedure. The Court also ordered that the Atomic Energy Research Centre be informed of the readings as well.

  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1037) (Ganges Pollution case) (AIR 1987 SC 1086) (Supreme Court).166 Toxic inflammable chemicals were found in the waters of the Ganga river. The Court determined that the case was unmanageable because of its vast scope due to the length of the river. As a result, the Court asked the applicant to focus more narrowly, and he ultimately decided on Kanpur. The Court ruled that the pollution of the Ganga amounted to public nuisance and ordered every tannery to establish a main treatment plant, if not a secondary one, regardless of their financial capacity. It also ruled that the Directorate General of Technical Development ought to set up a committee to draft a common effluent treatment plant for the Indian Tanning Industry.

  • M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997 1 SCC 388) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 182 of 1996 (River Beas/Kamal Nath Case) (Supreme Court).167 During the construction of a hotel in a forested area near the Beas river, the course of the river was channelled to save the motel from future flooding. The Court declared that the hotel company’s construction activities were not justified and revoked the lease-deed that leased the forested area to them. The Court ordered the hotel to: (i) pay the costs associated with restoring the local ecosystem and environment, (ii) to build a boundary wall in order to establish the hotel that would allow them to use the land in the river basin only up to a distance of 4 metres and (iii) not release untreated wastewater into the river. The Court instructed the Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board to monitor and conduct inspections.

  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 734) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381 of 1984 (Taj Trapezium Case) (Supreme Court).168 This judgement is a compilation of various orders passed by the Supreme Court to decrease the level of pollution in Taj Trapezium, an area around Taj Mahal covering five districts in the region of Agra. The court held that industries using coke/coal are the main pollutants and have detrimental effects on the Taj Mahal and the inhabitants of the area. The Court ordered 292 industries to switch to natural gas, otherwise they would have to move and cease using coal and coke to operate in the area. Industries that chose not to adopt one of the above-mentioned options would have to cease operations. The Court also ordered a number of measures aimed at controlling air pollution and mitigating its effects, including setting up a green belt around the Taj Mahal and setting up a 50-bed hospital and two mobile dispensaries to provide medical aid to the people living in the area.

  • Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 2187) (Supreme Court) (See Part I.B. above).

  • Lk Koolwal vs. State of Rajasthan and ORS (AIR 1988 Raj.2) (High Court of Rajasthan)169 (see Part I.B. above).

  • M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 1977) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 (Badkhal and Sujratkund Lakes Matter) (Supreme Court).170 The main issue in the case was to preserve the environment and control pollution during mining operations within the radius of five kilometres from the tourist resorts of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund. The court concluded that the mining activities were harming the environment and, therefore, had to be stopped. It ordered that no mining activities could be carried out in a two-kilometre radius around the tourist spots of Badkhal lake and Surajkund and no construction could be undertaken in a five-kilometre radius. The court also held that Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The “precautionary principle” makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The court ruled that the forest department of the State of Haryana shall develop “Green Belts” (plantations of trees), with specific types of trees to be planted, based on a report requested by the court.

  • Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212) (Groundwater Pollution Case) (Supreme Court).171 The Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action filed a writ petition on behalf of the population of Bichhri, a small village in Udaipur district of Rajasthan, who had been experiencing deaths and illnesses due to the contamination of the groundwater well in the area. This was caused due to the improper treatment of toxic effluents from industries in the area. The ‘polluters pay principle’ was applied by the court in this case. The court held that “…once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on.” Therefore, the court ordered payment to the inhabitants of the area in the amount of the losses caused due to the pollution of soil. In case of failure of the said respondents to pay the said amount the same should be recovered by the Central Government. The Court also ordered the closure of all the plants and factories of the respondents located in the Bichhri Village and directed the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board to seal all the factories, plants, machinery of the said respondents.

  • Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622 (Supreme Court).172 Citizens of Ratlam, a municipality in India, successfully sued the municipality under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code to force the municipality to remove a public nuisance. The municipality claimed it was unable to provide basic sanitation facilities and prevent street contamination, as required by Section 123 of the M. P. Municipalities Act of 1961, because it lacked the necessary financial resources.

    The Court ruled that a Court has the authority to compel a statutory entity to comply with the order in the name of public duty, which upheld the High Court's ruling. The Criminal Procedure Code's Section 133 serves against statutory bodies and may be utilised to eliminate a public nuisance within a certain time frame, according to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court determined that a municipality that is in charge of maintaining public health cannot assert financial incapacity to avoid doing so: “[a] responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies.” In order to reduce contamination, the court mandated that the town build drainpipes and provide the necessary facilities.

  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 1086) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12739 of 1985 (Supreme Court)173 (See Part I.B. above).

  • TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors (WP 202/1995) (Supreme Court).174 To stop illicit wood operations from destroying the Nilgiris forest area, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ petition with the Indian Supreme Court. The court considered that certain interim directions were necessary in respect of some aspects, to oversee the enforcement of forest laws across the nation. In an effort to protect the nation's forests, the Court issued comprehensive guidelines for the sustainable use of forests and established its own monitoring and implementation system through communities at the regional and state levels. These regulations governed the logging, use, and transportation of timber throughout the nation.


C. Are there any administrative authorities empowered to act on environmental complaints and if so, how are they empowered to respond to complaints?

The key regulatory authorities include:175

  • The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”) is responsible for planning, promoting, coordinating, and overseeing the implementation of environmental and forestry programmes.
  • The CPCB is a statutory authority attached to the MoEFCC and supervised by the NGT charged with monitoring the industrial pollution prevention and control at the central level.
  • The SPCB monitors the industrial pollution prevention and control at the State level and is also supervised by the NGT. Key environmental permits, consents or authorisations must be obtained from the SPCB. In certain cases, clearance or a consent or permit will be required from the CPCB, MoEFCC, Central Ground Water Board or Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization.
  • District level authorities (i.e., municipal corporations) monitor industrial pollution at a local level.

NGOs, think-tanks, and other civil society organisations are very active stakeholders in India and readily use the media, the courts and the NGTs to raise their environmental grievances. This is often effective, since the judiciary is generally sympathetic to environmental concerns raised in the public interest. Moreover, the Indian media is also very active and focuses on environmental issues. Interestingly, judges from the NGT, High Court and the Supreme Court even take up environmental cases suo moto (that is, on its own motion) based on media coverage of these matters.

 
 

IV. Civil and political rights

Freedom of peaceful assembly

A. How is children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly, including protests, protected in national law?

The Indian Constitution provides for freedom of assembly. Article 19(1)(b) provides that all citizens shall have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.176 In addition, there are other security laws which impact the freedom of assembly (e.g., the Police Act, 1861; the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911; the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958).177

India has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), which expressly recognizes freedom of peaceful assembly and association of children.178

B. Are there any legal limitations on the right of children to engage in peaceful assemblies?

The right to engage in peaceful assemblies is not absolute. Article 19(3) of the Indian Constitution imposes limits on the freedom of assembly in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order.179 In India, there are significant gaps and contradictions in the way the fundamental freedom of assembly is safeguarded.180 A significant portion of the issue stems from implementation, inconsistencies in state and local legislation, and the methods used by police enforcement to control gatherings.181 There is also a growing authoritarian attitude towards fundamental civil liberties and democratic activities, such as assemblies critical of majoritarian policies or the State's reaction to public health issues.182 Sedition accusations have frequently resulted in the detention of journalists, activists, and human rights advocates for voicing their opinions, even if Indian courts have ruled that any form of expression must involve incitement to imminent violence for it to amount to sedition.183

Serious human rights violations being committed in India against peaceful protesters and other civilians have been reported.184 During protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2020, an eight-year-old child was killed by the police.185 Following these events, the Supreme Court of India limited the right to engage in peaceful assemblies of children banning all children from the protest site, irrespective of their age and for an indefinite period of time.186

C. What penalties can be imposed on children for engaging in school strikes?

No penalties for engaging in school strikes have been identified in policy or law.

However, in schools in the state of Bihar, students must submit an application to the principal with a justification if they miss three days in a row of class. In the event that a legitimate explanation is not provided, the principal of the school may require an affidavit.187

During student protests in Jammu and Kashmir in 2017, students and educators were injured.188


Freedom of expression

A. How is children’s right to freedom of expression protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Freedom of speech includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, freedom of press,189 and right to information190 and the right to criticise.191 This right is, however, not absolute. Clause Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution imposes restrictions on free speech for the following reasons:192

(i) security of the State (i.e. serious and aggravated forms of public disorder (e.g. rebellion, waging war against the State);
(ii) friendly relations with foreign States;
(iii) public order (i.e. public peace, safety and tranquillity). Anything that disturbs public peace disturbs public order.193 However, mere criticism of the government does not necessarily disturb public order. A law, which punishes the deliberate utterances hurting the religious feelings of any class has been held to be valid and reasonable restriction aimed to maintaining the public order;
(iv) decency and morality (this prohibits e.g. the sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words);194
(v) contempt of court;
(vi) defamation (the right to free speech does not grant freedom to hurt another’s reputation which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution); (vii) incitement to an offence (prohibits a person from making any statement that incites people to commit offense); and
(viii) sovereignty and integrity of India.

In addition, Indian law contains various statutory restrictions relating to public order and online expression, including Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”), Section 353 (“statements conducing to public mischief”), and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form”).195

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to freedom of expression that specifically apply to children?

No legal limits or restrictions exist that specifically apply to children. India has ratified the CRC, which expressly recognizes freedom of expression of children.196 However, the exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions only:197

(i) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(ii) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

Freedom of association

A. How is children’s right to freedom of association protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution accords all citizens the right to form associations or unions or cooperative societies.198 This right is, however, not absolute. Article 19(4) of the Indian Constitution imposes restrictions on freedom of association in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality.199

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to association that specifically apply to children?

No legal limits or restrictions exist that specifically apply to children (see Part IV.B above).


Access to information

A. How is children’s right to access information protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI”) provides for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.200

Under Section 3 of the RTI “all citizens shall have the right to information”.201 The Act does not prescribe any minimum age requirement for making an information request. Since children who are citizens of India fall within the meaning of “citizens” under the Act, children are generally entitled to seek information under the RTI framework.

The constitutional basis of access to information has also been recognised through judicial interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which protects freedom of speech and expression and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a right to receive information.202

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to access information that apply specifically to children?

No specific restrictions under the Right to Information Act, 2005, apply exclusively to children.203 Children seeking information under the Act are generally subject to the same exemptions and procedural requirements applicable to all applicants.

C. Does the national curriculum for schools include environmental education?

Yes. The national curriculum is articulated in the National Curriculum Framework 2023 (“NCF”).204 It mentions that “[...] the goal of the new curriculum must be to transform our society into one that is more just, equitable, humane, prosperous, sustainable [...]” and should respond to challenges such as environmental degradation.205 It states that it has become imperative to restore and regenerate the environment and, therefore, environmental awareness and sensitivity should be acquired by students across different subject areas.206

The NCF provides further details on the aims of environmental education and how it should be structured.207 It emphasises developing environmental literacy, interdisciplinary thinking, compassion towards nature and action-oriented skills so students can understand and address the interconnected ecological, social, economic and ethical dimensions of environmental issues.208 Environmental education is integrated progressively across all school stages, from early engagement with nature in foundational years to a social-ecological and interdisciplinary approach in secondary education, enabling students to reason critically about sustainability, justice, equity and human well-being.209

***

End notes

1 Constitution of India, https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/ [last visited March 2026].

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid. Article 37 (Part IV) provides that the provisions of Part IV (DPSP) are not “enforceable by any court” but “fundamental in the governance of the country” and the State must apply those provisions in making law.

5 Supra note 1.

6 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/.

7 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978: case analysis, https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/.


8 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2187 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104313664/.

9 L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1988 Raj. 2 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778875/.

10 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 420 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1646284/.

11 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi Ridge Case), A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4016, Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69408974/.

12 M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69408974/.

13 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086, Writ Petition (C) No. 12739 of 1985 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/.

14 Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 S.C.C. 577 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27930439/.

15 M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 and with Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022 (March 21, 2024) (Supreme Court), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128036238/.

16 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 6 S.C.C. 363, 382 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149168/.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 10 S.C.C. 96, Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of 1988 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/307206/.

20 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 267 (India), https://ecojurisprudence.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/India_T.N.-Godavarman-Thirumulpad-vs-Union-Of-India-Ors_57.pdf.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid., para. 19.

24 Ibid., para. 20.

25 S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 87 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/507684/.

26 A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 S.C.C. 718 (India), https://www.informea.org/en/court-decision/ap-pollution-control-board-v-prof-mv-nayudu-retd.

27 Goa Foundation v. Union of India (Goa Mining Case), Writ Petition (C) No. 435 of 2012 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81576067/.

28 Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, Original Application No. 187 of 2017 (N.G.T. Principal Bench), https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/pandey-v-india/.

29 The Goenchi Mati Movement, Intergenerational Equity Documents, https://goenchimati.org/intergenerational-equity-documents/.

30 Supra note 1, Article 246.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, No. 53 of 1972, https://indiacode.gov.in/act/3df23bd4-5433-4baf-92e9-56b72f4f1008/sections.

35 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, No. 6 of 1974, https://indiacode.gov.in/act/16ffc39d-110a-4a34-91e9-f4e78d8cafa8/sections.

36 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, No. 69 of 1980, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1436914/.

37 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, No. 14 of 1981, https://indiacode.gov.in/act/269a874d-1f40-4bd5-af17-d9cf30f58d51/sections.

38 Biological Diversity Act, 2002, No. 18 of 2003, https://indiacode.gov.in/act/000de0a3-39ce-4e18-85f0-0c51b4bdab5d/sections.

39 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, No. 19 of 2010, https://indiacode.gov.in/act/b7437cdc-49cc-4bce-9e04-ba768521a2ec/sections.

40 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29 of 1986, https://indiacode.gov.in/act/10eea11f-bfda-41d0-b8dc-58176e704613/sections.

41 Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, G.S.R. 844(E), Nov. 19, 1986, https://www.cpcb.nic.in/upload/home/epa/THE%20ENVIRONMENT.pdf.

42 Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, S.O. 1533(E), Sept. 14, 2006, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(ii), https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_notifications/2006_09_14_EIA.pdf.

43 Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 451(E), Apr. 8, 2016, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://investmeghalaya.gov.in/resources/homePage/17/megeodb/rules/Solid_Waste_Management_Rules.pdf.

44 Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 320(E), Mar. 18, 2016, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://cpcb.nic.in/rules-4/.

45 E-Waste Management Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 338(E), Mar. 23, 2016, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://hspcb.org.in/uploads/laws/Ewaste_Rules.pdf.

46 Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 343(E), Mar. 28, 2016, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://www.hspcb.org.in/uploads/laws/BMW_Rules.pdf.

47 Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 395(E), Apr. 4, 2016, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://www.hspcb.org.in/uploads/laws/hsm1.pdf.

48 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 317(E), Mar. 29, 2016, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://thc.nic.in/Central%20Governmental%20Rules/Construction%20and%20Demolition%20Waste%20Management%20Rules,%202016.pdf.

49 Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022, G.S.R. 630(E), Aug. 22, 2022, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/Battery-WasteManagementRules-2022.pdf.

50 Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989, G.S.R. 966(E), Nov. 27, 1989, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://ifbgoa.goa.gov.in/sites/default/files/Manufacture_Storage%26Import_of_Hazardous_Chemical_Rules%201989.pdf.

51 Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996, G.S.R. 347(E), Aug. 1, 1996, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://www.fabkerala.gov.in/eng/images/Acts%20and%20Rules/Rules/Chemical%20Accidents%20Emergency%20Planning%20Preparedness%20and%20Response%20Rules%201996.pdf.

52 Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-Organisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989, G.S.R. 1037(E), Dec. 5, 1989, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), http://geacindia.gov.in/resource-documents/biosafety-regulations/acts-and-rules/Rules-for-the-manufacture-use-import-export-and-storage-1989.pdf.

53 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, G.S.R. 682(E), Feb. 14, 2000, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(ii), https://cpcb.nic.in/regulation-control/.

54 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, S.O. 19(E), Jan. 6, 2011, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(ii), amended by Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, S.O. 1422(E), Jan. 18, 2019, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(ii), https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/CRZ_Notifications.aspx.

55 Eco-Sensitive Zone Notifications, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29 of 1986, and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, G.S.R. 844(E), Nov. 19, 1986, https://moef.gov.in/esz-notifications.


56 Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, G.S.R. 371(E), July 17, 2000, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://npcb.nagaland.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Ozone-Rules-2000.pdf.

57 Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, G.S.R. 1200(E), Sept. 26, 2017, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://indianwetlands.in/our-work/wetlands-conservation-and-management-rules-2017/.

58 Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, No. 15 of 2023, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 1, Aug. 4, 2023, https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2023/247866.pdf.

59 Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Others v Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No 1164 of 2023, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139148592/.

60 Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023, No. 26 of 2023, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 1, Aug. 11, 2023, https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/23716.

61 Residents Welfare Ass’n v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4950 of 2022), decided Jan. 10, 2023, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80353964/.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

64 Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 178 (India Mar. 6, 2024), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129789971/.

65 Aiman J. Chishti, Global Warming: National Green Tribunal Forms Committee To Frame Policy, Measures To Protect Submerging Islands, https://www.livelaw.in/environment/national-green-tribunal-sou-motu-case-submerging-islands-global-warming-policy-measures-232665; Re: News Item Published in Newspaper The Hindu dated 19.03.2023 titled “India’s Sinking Island”, Original Application No. 401 of 2023 (N.G.T. July 10, 2023), https://www.greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/news_updates/Para-Wise%20Reply%20by%20R-1%20in%20OA%20No.10-2023%20(page%20nos.1137-1644).pdf.

66 Supra note 40.

67 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Notification No. B-29016/20/90/PCI-I, Apr. 18, 1994, revised by Notification No. B-29016/20/90/PCI-I, Nov. 16, 2009, Central Pollution Control Board, https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/National_Ambient_Air_Quality_Standards.pdf; Supra note 47.

68 Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, No. 6 of 1991, https://moef.gov.in/uploads/2018/03/6.pdf.

69 Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Public Liability Insurance Acts & Rules, HSPCB, https://hspcb.org.in/page/public-liability-insurance-acts-rules.

70 G.V.K. Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, (2011) 4 S.C.C. 36 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1608984/.

71 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 1(5), https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf.

72 Supra note 45.

73 Shalini Iyengar, Nives Dolšak & Aseem Prakash, Selectively Assertive: Interventions of India’s Supreme Court to Enforce Environmental Laws, 11 Sustainability no. 24, art. 7234 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247234; OECD, Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in India: Rapid Assessment 25 (2006), https://www.cseindia.org/environmental-compliance-and-enforcement-in-india-rapid-assessment-559 [last visited March 2026].

74 S. Guru Krishnakumar, Environment Law in India – An Overview, CMS Cameron McKenna (Nov. 1999), https://cms.law/en/gbr/legal-updates/environment-law-in-india-an-overview.

75 Ibid.; See also the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5 of 1908, § 91, https://indiacode.gov.in/act/3d38ec80-965e-4df0-a2d2-3d97cb1dc702/sections; supra note 71, § 270; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 152, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13685345/.

76 Ibid, Code of Civil Procedure; C. M. Abraham & Sushila Abraham, The Bhopal Case and the Development of Environmental Law in India, 40 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 334, 356 (1991), www.jstor.org/stable/759728.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid., at p. 334.

79 National Green Tribunal Act, No. 19 of 2010, sched. I (India), https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/nationalgreen/sch1.php.


80 Ibid.

81 Ibid., § 4(3).

82 National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011, r. 12, G.S. 223(E), May. 24, 2011, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), https://www.legitquest.com/act/national-green-tribunal-practices-and-procedure-rules-2011/9B2F.

83 Ibid.

84 Supra note 39, § 15(1).


85 Ibid, § 15(3).


86 Supra note 82, r. 22.

87 Supra note 39, § 22.


88 Ibid, § 20; Sridhar Rengarajan, S. Saleem Ahamed, A. K. Jayakumar & R. Jegankumar, National Green Tribunal of India—An Observation from Environmental Judgements, 25 Environmental Science and Pollution Research 11313, 11314 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1763-2.

89 Supra note 39, § 26.


90 Supra note 39, Schedule 1.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid.

94 OECD, Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in India: Rapid Assessment 13 (2006), https://www.cseindia.org/environmental-compliance-and-enforcement-in-india-rapid-assessment-559 [last visited March 2026].

95 Elizabeth B. Fata, Actions and Reactions: The Evolution of Environmental Common Law and Judicial Activism in India and the United States, 23 U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 215, 232 (2015),http://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol23/iss1/7.


96 Supra note 94, at p. 11.

97 Ibid., at p. 13.


98 Ibid.

99 Supra note 96, at p. 230.


100 Ibid.

101 Ibid., at p. 231.

102 Supra note 39, § 19(1).


103 Domenico Amirante, Environmental Courts in Comparative Perspective: Preliminary Reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India, 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 441, 519 (2012), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol29/iss2/3.

104 Supra note 74.

105 Ibid.; See also supra note 1, Article 32(2): “The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part” and Article 226(1): “Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”


106 Agata Fijalkowski & Malgosia Fitzmaurice eds., The Right of the Child to a Clean Environment (Ashgate 2000).

107 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5 of 1908, Order XXXII, Rule 1, https://www.writinglaw.com/order-32-of-cpc/.

108 Ibid.

109 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149, 189–90, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112850760/; Supra note 1.

110 Supra note 39.

111 Ibid.

112 Supra note 82.

113 Supra note 28.

114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 1 of 1872, http://www.liiofindia.org/in/legis/cen/num_act/iea1872125/.

115 Ibid., Section 102.

116 LexisNexis, Burden of Proof in Personal Injury Claims, LexisPSL Personal Injury.

117 S. Muralidhar, Unsettling Truths, Untold Tales: The Bhopal Gas Disaster Victims’ “Twenty Years” of Courtroom Struggles for Justice 63, IELRC Working Paper 2004-5 (2004), https://repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/item/50539; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 S.C.C. 718, 730, p. 12, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/764031/.

118 Ibid., A.P. Pollution, p. 13.

119 Ibid.

120 M. Tony Mathew and L. Priyadharshini, Tortious Liability For Environmental Harm In India – A Review (2018), International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Volume 120 No. 5, 463-475, p. 466. Available at: https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/5/431.pdf.

121 Ibid.

122 Supra note 120, p. 467.


123 Ibid.

124 Supra note 76, p. 364; Bharat Parmar & Aayush Goyal, Absolute Liability: The Rule of Strict Liability in Indian Perspective, https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/2D83321D-590A-4646-83F6-9D8E84F5AA3C.pdf.

125 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1989) 1 S.C.C. 674 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1344892/.

126 Supra note 76, at pp. 334-335.

127 Ibid., at pp. 345-346.


128 Gitanjali Nain Gill, Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal 99 (Routledge 2017).

129 Ibid.

130 National Green Tribunal, An Information Booklet (2014), https://greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_documents/NGT_Information_Booklet.pdf.

131 Supra note 39, Section 14.


132 Ibid., at Section 15.

133 Ibid.

134 Ibid., at Section 22.

135 Ibid.

136 Doaba Paryavaran Samiti v. Union of India, Original Application No. 101 of 2014 (N.G.T. Principal Bench), https://wwfin.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/doaba-paryavaran-samiti-vs--union-of-india---ors-.pdf.

137 Ibid.

138 Ibid.

139 Dinah Shelton & Alexandre Kiss, Judicial Handbook on Environmental Law 11 (United Nations Environment Programme 2005), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/585990?ln=es&v=pdf.

140 Supra note 1, Article 39A.


141 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, No. 39 of 1987, Section 12, https://nalsa.gov.in/the-legal-services-authorities-act-1987/.

142 Website of the National Legal Services Authority, FAQs, Question 14, https://nalsa.gov.in/faqs/.

143 Supra note 141, Section 2(1)(c).


144 Supra note 141, Section 2(c).

145 Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (U.K.), https://www.informea.org/sites/default/files/court-decisions/Rylands%20vs%20Fletcher.pdf.

146 Ibid.

147 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/.

148 Ibid.; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 212 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818014/.


149 S. Ganapathy Venkatasubramanian, Emergence of Environmental Jurisprudence Through Judicial Activism in India, in Environmental Jurisprudence Through Judicial Activism in India ch. 8, Shodhganga. Specific Relief Act, No. 47 of 1963, §§ 36–41, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1583/7/A1963-47.pdf.

150 Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, The Legal and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Protection in India, http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/wssd/doc2/ch2.html [last visited November 2025].

151 Supra note 75.

152 Supra note 71.

153 Supra note 1.


154 Ibid.

155 Ibid.

156 Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, No. 6 of 1991,https://moef.gov.in/uploads/2018/03/6.pdf.


157 Ibid.

158 Ibid., Section 7A.

159 Centre for Policy Research, Understanding the National Green Tribunal, CPR India, https://cprindia.org/news/5400.

160 Supra note 39, § 18.


161 Supra note 59.

162 Supra note 39, §§ 19, 20.

163 Sukhvinder Singh Dari & Rangam Sharma, An Overview of Environmental Jurisprudence in India, 1 J. Gen. Mgmt. Res. no. 1 (Jan. 2014), https://www.scmsnoida.ac.in/article-sukhvindersingh-dari [last visited March 2025].

164 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 212 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818014/.

165 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi Ridge Case), A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4016 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1896562/.

166 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Gamma Chamber Case), 1987 (Supp.) S.C.C. 607 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1208005/.

167 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 388, Writ Petition (C) No. 182 of 1996 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1514672/.

168 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 734, Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 (India), https://elaw.org/resource/india-mc-mehta-v-union-india-wp-133811984-19961230-taj-trapezium-case.

169 L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1988 Raj. 2 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778875/.

170 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Case), A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1977, Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 (India), https://elaw.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/attachments/publicresource/India--M.C.Mehta_.v.Union_.of_.India,WP.4677.of_.1985.(2001.01.03).pdf.

171 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 212 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818014/.

172 Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1622 (India), https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2019/municipal-council-ratlam-v-shri-vardhichand-others-1980-air-1622-1981-scr-1-97.

173 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086, Writ Petition (C) No. 12739 of 1985 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/.

174 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 267 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159581452/.

175 Centre for Science and Environment, National Green Tribunal: A New Beginning for Environmental Cases?, https://www.cseindia.org/national-green-tribunal--a-new-beginning-for-environmental-cases-2900; Els Reynaers Kini & Gautambala Nandeshwar, Environmental Law and Practice in India: Overview, Practical Law Thomson Reuters, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-503-2029?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1#co_anchor_a932302.

176 Supra note 1.

177 Police Act, 1861, No. 5 of 1861, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/police_act_1861.pdf; Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911, No. 10 of 1911, https://nasirlawsite.com/laws/psma.htm; Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, No. 28 of 1958, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/armed_forces_special_powers_act1958.pdf.


178 Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 15, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, Article 15, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child.

179 Supra note 1.

180 Vrinda Grover, Assessing India’s Legal Framework on the Right to Peaceful Assembly (ICNL 2021), https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/India-freedom-of-assembly-report-2021-final.pdf.


181 Ibid.

182 Ibid.

183 Amnesty International, India: International Community Must Condemn Crimes Against Peaceful Protesters (Mar. 2020), https://www.amnesty.org.au/india-states-must-condemn-human-rights-violations-against-peaceful-protesters/.

184 Ibid.

185 Ibid.

186 Oxford Human Rights Hub, Indian Supreme Court Arbitrarily Limits Children’s Right to Protest (2020), https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/indian-supreme-court-arbitrarily-limits-childrens-right-to-protest/.

187 Bihar Removes 3.32 Lakh Students from Government Schools for Prolonged Absence, The Shillong Times (Sept. 27, 2023), https://theshillongtimes.com/2023/09/27/bihar-removes-3-32-lakh-students-from-government-schools-for-prolonged-absence/.

188 Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, Education Under Attack 2018 – India (2018), https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/gcpea/2018/en/122340.

189 Cf. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 S.C.R. 594, 607; A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/?__cf_chl_tk=QtUSaSaHt36Dv.k00LLV2Jh4h8SjeTKgo2CNE6OIoXQ-1779981386-1.0.1.1-znYzViRYknLeY4M0rytt1Zynh7ums7VGByugR1ThUUo.

190 Cf. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, A.I.R. 2001 Del. 126; 2000 (57) D.R.J. 82 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655946/.

191 Cf. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 S.C.R. (2) 204; (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/341773/.

192 N. Pradhan, Constitution of India-Freedom of speech and expression, Legal Service India E-Journal. Available at: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-572-constitution-of-india-freedom-of-speech-and-expression.html; Dheerendra Patanjali, Freedom of Speech and Expression India v America - A study, India Law Journal. Available at: https://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume3/issue_4/article_by_dheerajendra.html.

193 Cf. Om Prakash v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948 Nag. 199 (India), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e2f14a932619d903aab8.

194 Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 881 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1623275/?__cf_chl_tk=nw_2y_W88CNr8pqTD.b9uw3s.7Y7tktzGAaQsC2TGpg-1779996132-1.0.1.1-TDZT8GXdu1xIoHEMLK5c1183bMAjikqKiiljLc.DJ00.

195 Supra note 71; Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000, § 67, https://eprocure.gov.in/cppp/rulesandprocs/kbadqkdlcswfjdelrquehwuxcfmijmuixngudufgbuubgubfugbububjxcgfvsbdihbgfGhdfgFHytyhRtMjk4NzY=.

196 Supra note 178, Article 13 (1).

197 Ibid., Article 13 (2).

198 Supra note 1.

199 Ibid.

200 Right to Information Act, 2005, No. 22 of 2005, https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf.

201 Ibid.

202 Supra note 1; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 S.C.C. 428, 453 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/438670/; Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 S.C.C. 161 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/539407/.

203 Supra note 200.

204 National Council of Educational Research and Training, National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023 (2023), https://www.dsel-education.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/12/9bda261b6e91eda0bc9865b927659d7a.pdf.

205 Ibid., p. 16, 20.


206 Ibid., p. 16, 17.


207 Ibid., p. 34, 35.

208 Ibid.

209 Ibid.