Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.93 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996
The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian law by this
Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath , (supra) and also in M.I. Builders v.
Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464. In M.C. Mehta, Kuldip Singh J., writing for
the majority held:
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Etc vs Ganesh Wood Products & Ors.Etc on 11 September, 1995
The concept of sustainable development also finds support in the decisions of this court
in the cases M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), (1997) 2 SCC 653,
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products,(1995) 3 SCC 363 and
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 664.
In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting an
intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local
ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a principle of sustainable
development and find a balance between the developmental needs which the
respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appelants allege.
Public Trust Doctrine
Another legal doctrine that is relevant to this matter is the Doctrine of Public Trust.
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000
The concept of sustainable development also finds support in the decisions of this court
in the cases M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), (1997) 2 SCC 653,
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products,(1995) 3 SCC 363 and
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 664.
In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting an
intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local
ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a principle of sustainable
development and find a balance between the developmental needs which the
respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appelants allege.
Public Trust Doctrine
Another legal doctrine that is relevant to this matter is the Doctrine of Public Trust.
M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Radhey Shyam Sahu And Others on 26 July, 1999
The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian law by this
Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath , (supra) and also in M.I. Builders v.
Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464. In M.C. Mehta, Kuldip Singh J., writing for
the majority held:
A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof.M.V.Nayudu (Retd.) & Others on 27 January, 1999
Further the principle of "Inter-Generational Equity" has also been adopted
while determining cases involving environmental issues. This Court in the case of A.P.
Pollution Control Board vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 718 in paragraph
53 held as under:
Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection ... vs Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply ... on 19 March, 1991
This Court in Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Group and Ors. Vs.
Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 539 held that the
concerned Government should "consider the importance of public projects for the
betterment of the conditions of living people on one hand and the necessity for
preservation of social and ecological balance and avoidance of deforestation and
maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the
light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by
various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a balance between the
two conflicting objectives."
Virendra Gaur And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 November, 1994
However, some of the environmental activists, as noted in the "The
Environmental Activities Hand Book' authored by Gayatri Singh, Kerban Ankleswaria
and Colins Gonsalves, that the Judges are carried away by the money spent on projects
and that mega projects, that harm the environment are not condemned. However, this
criticism seems to be baseless since in Virender Gaur & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 577, this Court insisted on the demolition of structure which have
been constructed on the lands reserved for common purposes and that this Court did
not allow its decision to be frustrated by the actions of a party. This Court followed the
said decision in several cases issuing directions and ensuring its enforcement by
nothing short of demolition or restoration of status quo ante. The fact that crores of
rupees was spent already on development projects did not convince this Court while
being in a zeal to jealously safeguarding the environment and in preventing the abuse of
the environment by a group of humans or the authorities under the State for that matter.