Author: TYC

ISSUE:

Whether the Municipal Council can be directed under Section 133 of the CrPC to provide proper sanitation facilities and abate public nuisance?

Whether financial constraints can absolve a municipal body from its statutory duty to ensure public health and sanitation?

RULE:

Section 133 CrPC imposes a mandatory duty on authorities to remove public nuisances. When public nuisance is established, the magistrate must order its removal, and statutory bodies are bound to comply.

Financial incapacity does not exempt municipalities from their statutory obligations. A statutory duty must be fulfilled regardless of budgetary constraints, and lack of funds is not a valid defense.

Public health and sanitation are non-negotiable obligations under the law. Ensuring basic hygiene and dignity is an essential function of local self-government, and authorities cannot neglect.

ISSUE:

Whether the transfer of government land in Scheduled Areas to non-tribals, including private entities, violates the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution?

Whether the term "person" in Section 3(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, includes the State Government, thereby restricting it from transferring land in Scheduled Areas to non-tribals?

RULE:

The term "person" under Section 3(1)(a) includes the State, preventing it from transferring land in Scheduled Areas to non-tribals. The protection of tribal land would be rendered meaningless if the State could transfer its land to non-tribals while individuals were prohibited from doing so.

Leasing is a mode of land transfer. A lease grants possession and use rights, effectively alienating the land. Since the regulation prohibits transfers to non-tribals, granting leases to them is also prohibited.

The Constitution mandates that resources in Scheduled Areas should be used to benefit tribals. The economic empowerment of tribals is central to the Fifth Schedule, and permitting non-tribals to exploit land in Scheduled Areas contradicts this mandate.

ISSUE:

Whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh had the authority to refuse or revoke approvals granted by IPARA for establishing katha manufacturing units?

Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel barred the government from withdrawing approvals after entrepreneurs had acted upon them?

RULE:

The power to approve includes the power to refuse or revoke approval. Approval by IPARA does not create a vested right, as final discretion lies with the government.

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and must be applied flexibly. It does not bind the government if enforcement would be inequitable or against public interest.

The government must consider the availability of raw materials and the impact on forest resources before granting industrial approvals.

Courts should not interfere with executive policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or in violation of statutory provisions

ISSUE:

Whether the State has a constitutional obligation to actively promote environmental awareness among citizens?

Whether mandating cinema halls and public broadcasters to disseminate environmental messages is a justified exercise of regulatory power?

Whether environmental education should be made a compulsory subject at all levels of education to ensure compliance with environmental laws?

RULE:

Law alone cannot effectively work unless there is an element of acceptance by the people. No law operates smoothly unless its purpose is understood and voluntarily followed. For environmental laws to be effective, citizens must be made aware of their duty to protect the environment.
2
Regulation in public interest is a valid exercise of State authority. Businesses, including cinema halls and broadcasters, function under State regulation and can be required to promote social welfare. Spreading environmental awareness through such mediums is necessary to educate the public and instill responsibility.

Education is the most effective means of securing compliance with environmental laws. Human conduct aligns with legal requirements when people understand their necessity. Teaching environmental awareness at all levels ensures that individuals internalize these principles, making legal enforcement more effective and sustainable.

ISSUE:

Whether overhead power lines in the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican pose a critical threat to their survival and require immediate mitigation?

Whether undergrounding power lines in priority GIB habitats is necessary, and if not feasible, whether alternative measures must be implemented?

RULE:

The ecocentric approach recognizes that wildlife has intrinsic value, and conservation efforts must prioritize species protection over developmental concerns.

The public trust doctrine imposes a duty on the state to act as a guardian of natural resources, ensuring that endangered species are preserved for future generations.

Sustainable development requires that infrastructure projects must not cause irreversible harm to critically endangered species, and feasible mitigation measures must be adopted.

Article 21 of the Constitution includes the protection of biodiversity, obligating the state to take proactive conservation measures against species extinction.

ISSUE:

Whether aquaculture farms, particularly intensive and semi-intensive shrimp farming, violate environmental laws and fundamental rights by operating in ecologically fragile coastal areas?

Whether shrimp aquaculture industries, which are not directly dependent on the waterfront or foreshore facilities, are prohibited under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification of 1991?

Whether commercial shrimp farming, which causes environmental degradation, is liable under the ‘polluter pays’ principle and should be made responsible for ecological restoration?

Whether the failure of regulatory authorities to prevent environmental damage from shrimp farming amounts to a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution?

RULE:

Environmental protection must not wait for scientific certainty; where there is a serious risk of environmental harm, preventive action must be taken. The burden lies on the industrial entity to prove its activities are environmentally benign.

An industry that profits from the environment must internalize the cost of its pollution. Liability extends not only to compensating victims but to reversing environmental damage.

Shrimp farming is neither an industry directly related to the waterfront nor one that requires foreshore facilities. Mere dependence on seawater does not justify its presence in ecologically fragile areas.

A healthy environment is an integral part of the right to life. Any activity that substantially impairs water sources, biodiversity, or the livelihood of local communities violates constitutional guarantees.

Shrimp farms, by obstructing natural drainage, altering salinity levels, and destroying mangroves, destabilize the coastal ecosystem. The law does not permit economic benefits to outweigh ecological and social harm.

ISSUE:

Whether the ex post facto environmental and forest clearances granted on 19.4.2010 and 22.4.2010 were vitiated due to suppression of material facts regarding the nature of the land?

Whether the process followed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in granting clearances satisfied the requirements of judicial review?

RULE:

Ex post facto clearances are valid if granted after due diligence and not vitiated by suppression of material facts. A project proponent cannot be faulted for relying on official classifications of land unless there is deliberate misrepresentation.

Judicial review of environmental clearances is limited to assessing whether the decision-making process was fair, informed, and free from bias. Courts do not reassess the merits of policy decisions if these conditions are met.

Sustainable development requires balancing environmental protection with economic considerations, including the rights of local and indigenous communities. Environmental regulation should not impose an absolute bar on development but must ensure mitigation of adverse effects.

ISSUE:

Whether industries discharging untreated effluents into the Ganga can continue to operate without adequate pollution control measures?

Whether the State Pollution Control Board has the power to order closure of industries failing to comply with environmental regulations?

Whether industries that have not installed primary effluent treatment plants can be permitted to function?

Whether failure to deposit the required contribution towards pollution control measures warrants closure of industrial units?

RULE:

Industries cannot discharge untreated effluents into water bodies; installing and operating effluent treatment plants is a mandatory obligation.

The Pollution Control Board has the authority to order closure of industries that fail to comply with environmental regulations.

The right to carry on business is not absolute and is subject to compliance with pollution control laws to prevent environmental degradation.