No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2021
A study of the rights regime for environmental protection in India indicates that such protections overlap with constitutional rights guaranteed primarily to citizens or persons under the law. Contemporary jurisprudence has aggressively developed this intersectionality, declaring natural entities to be living persons with fundamental rights analogous to those of human beings. This article explores the role played by two judgments delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court – Mohammed Salim v. State of Uttarakhand and Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand – in the establishment of an effective framework for environmental protection. This is effectuated in both cases by assigning legal personality to rivers and articulating a conceptual shift from the human-centric approach. Accounting for the socio-cultural and spiritual relationships that have received legal protection, this article critically analyzes the judgments, their rationale and contributions to environmental protection. As the judgments articulate a paradigm shift in environmental protection, their effectiveness is best assessed through analyzing the frameworks created for their implementation. While the pronouncement of the Indian courts on the legal personality of rivers is an encouraging paradigm shift in environmental commitment, establishing the rights of nature was undertaken without due attention to the complexities that characterize the Indian socio-politico-religious context and to the legal consequences of bestowing vaguely contoured rights upon natural entities.
We thank the anonymous TEL reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
1 Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014 (HC), 20 Mar. 2017.
2 2017 SCC OnLine Utt 392; an alternative citation is 2017 SCC Online Utt 367. The judgment may be accessed at SCC Online (subscription service).
3 Marshall, V., Overturning Aqua Nullius: Securing Aboriginal Rights (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2017), p. 10Google Scholar; Magallanes, C., ‘From Rights to Responsibilities Using Legal Personhood and Guardianship for Rivers’, in Martin, B., Aho, L. Te & Humphries-Kil, M. (eds), ResponsAbility: Law and Governance for Living Well with the Earth (Routledge, 2019), pp. 216–39Google Scholar.
4 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990) 1 SCC 520; Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598.
5 The Supreme Court has grouped together the appeals against the judgments in Ganga and Glaciers, which has effectively stayed their implementation. See Supreme Court of India, ‘Daily Cause List Dated: 16-12-2019’, Items 40 and 40.1, pp. 1–155, at 8.
9 Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India, Notification, 20 Feb. 2009, S.O. 521(E), available at: http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/521.pdf.
10 Mohammed Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, 5 Dec. 2016.
13 Ganga, n. 1 above, para. 6. Both judgments are part of the same writ petition. In environmental matters, courts in India have exhibited a tendency to keep the matters open and issue series of directions without completely disposing of the matter.
14 Te Awa Tupua Act (Whanganui River Claims Settlement), No 7, 2017 (New Zealand); see also O'Donnell, E. et al. , ‘Stop Burying the Lede: The Essential Role of Indigenous Law(s) in Creating Rights of Nature’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 403–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tănăsescu, M., ‘Rights of Nature, Legal Personality, and Indigenous Philosophies’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 429–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Ganga, n. 1 above, para. 19.
16 Glaciers, n. 2 above.
19 State of Uttarakhand and Others v. Mohammed Salim and Others, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 016879/2017, Order dated 7 July 2017 (staying the ruling in the Salim case); Union of India v. Lalit Miglani, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 34250/2017.
20 A. Mandhani, ‘SC Stays Uttarakhand HC's Order Declaring Ganga and Yamuna River as Legal Entities’, Live Law, 8 July 2017, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/sc-stays-uttarakhand-hcs-order-declaring-ganga-yamuna-rivers-living-legal-entities-read-order.
21 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal (2010) 3 SCC 786.
22 Hira Nath Mishra and Others v. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College (1973) 1 SCC.
23 Singh, M.P., ‘The Federal Scheme’, in Chowdhury, S., Khosla, M. & Mehta, P.B. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 451–65Google Scholar.
24 Constitution of India, Art. 226(2); see also ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, 1994 SCC (4) 711.
25 The conferment of legal personhood on rivers in New Zealand has been followed by an elaborate representative scheme of management; see generally L. Te Aho, ‘Indigenous Challenges to Enhance Freshwater Governance and Management in Aotearoa New Zealand: The Waikato River Settlement’ (2010) 20(5) The Journal of Water Law, pp. 285–92, at 291; O'Donnell et al., n. 14 above; Tănăsescu, n. 14 above.
26 The Government of Uttarakhand, the appellants in the instant case, has welcomed the effect of the judgment of giving legal personality to the rivers: O. Ahmed, ‘Uttarakhand's Case Points to the Challenges of Giving a River the Rights of a Human’, Scroll.in, 5 July 2017, available at: https://scroll.in/article/842565/uttarakhands-case-points-to-the-challenges-of-giving-a-river-the-rights-of-a-human.
29 Adriano, E., ‘The Natural Person, Legal Entity or Juridical Person and Juridical Personality’ (2015) 4(1) Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs, pp. 363–91, at 376Google Scholar.
32 Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass, 2000 Tax Pub (DT) 1319 (SC).
33 Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commission of Income-Tax, Calcutta, 1969 SCR (3) 742.
34 Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of UP, 1997(2) SCR 1086.
35 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2012), p. 1225.
36 Switzerland, Germany, and Austria have amended their civil codes to declare that animals are not objects; see V. Gerritsen, ‘Animal Welfare in Switzerland’ (2013) 1 Global Journal of Animal Law, pp. 1–15, at 2.
37 (2014) 7 SCC 547.
38 R. Ghai, ‘Elephants Have First Right on Forest, Says SC while Ordering Demolition of Numaligarh Refinery Wall’, Down to Earth, Jan. 2019, available at: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/wildlife-biodiversity/elephants-have-first-right-on-forest-says-sc-while-ordering-demolition-of-numaligarh-refinery-wall-62888.
39 People for Animals v. Mohammed Mohazzim and Others, Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2051/2015 (Delhi HC).
41 Zalasiewicz, J. et al. , ‘The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of Evidence and Interim Recommendations’ (2017) 19 Anthropocene, pp. 55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anthropocene Working Group, ‘Results of Binding Vote by AWG’, Sub-Commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy, 21 May 2019, available at: http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene.
45 Robinson, N.A., ‘Fundamental Principles of Law for the Anthropocene?’ (2014) 44(1–2) Environmental Policy & Law, pp. 13–26, at 19Google Scholar; Berros, M.V., ‘Rights of Nature in the Anthropocene: Towards the Democratization of Environmental Law?’, in Lim, M. (ed.), Charting Environmental Law Futures in the Anthropocene (Springer, 2019), pp. 21–31Google Scholar.
46 S. Knauß, ‘Conceptualising Human Stewardship in the Anthropocene: The Rights of Nature in Ecuador’ (2018) 31 New Zealand and Indian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, pp. 703–22, at 704.
47 Constitution of India, Art. 227.
48 Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd v. Church of South India Trust Association, 1992 SCR (2) 999; Piyush Kanti Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal (2007) 23 CHN 178.
49 All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh v. All India Reporter Ltd, 1988 SCR (3) 774; Pooran Chandra Joshi v. Biswan Chandra Harris, Civil Appeal No. 6139 of 2009.
50 Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online Utt. 645.
51 Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC Online P&H 704.
52 Narayan Dutt Bhatt, n. 50 above, para. 99; Karnail Singh, n. 51 above, para. 95.
53 Narayan Dutt Bhatt, ibid, para. 99; Karnail Singh, ibid., para. 26.
54 N. Ciecierska-Holmes et al., Environmental Policy in India (Routledge, 2019), p. 128.
55 M. Ghatwai, ‘Madhya Pradesh Assembly Declares Narmada Living Entity’, Indian Express, 4 May 2017, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/madhya-pradesh-assembly-declares-narmada-living-entity-4639713.
57 Sheela Barse v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1472/2019 (SC).
58 Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v. Government of Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 13989 of 2016 (Bangladesh SC).
59 Ganga, n. 1 above, para. 10.
64 Glaciers, n. 2 above, para. 60.
65 L. White, ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’ (1967) 155(3767) Science, pp. 1203–7.
66 J. Boersema, A. Blowers & A. Martin, ‘The Religion-Environment Connection’ (2008) 5(4) Environmental Sciences, pp. 217–21.
67 O.P. Dwivedi, ‘Hindu Religion and Environmental Well-Being’, in R.S. Gottlieb (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 1–22; R.S. Gottlieb, This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment (Routledge, 2006), p. 136.
68 E. Tomalin, ‘The Limitations of Religious Environmentalism in India’ (2002) 6(1) World Views, pp. 12–30; O.P. Dwivedi, ‘Human Responsibility and the Environment: A Hindu Perspective’ (1993) 6(8) Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, pp. 19–26; V.V. Shenoy, ‘Eco-Spirituality: Case Studies on Hinduism and Environmentalism in Contemporary India’ (Honours thesis, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA (United States), 2 May 2016), p. 8; T.R. Dunlap, Faith in Nature: Environmentalism as Religious Quest (University of Washington Press, 2004), p. 107.
69 Dwivedi, n. 68 above, p. 24.
70 C. Lokgariwar et al., ‘Including Cultural Water Requirements in Environmental Flow Assessment: An Example from the Upper Ganga River, India’ (2014) 39(1) Water International, pp. 81–96; J. O'Keeffe et al., Assessment of Environmental Flows (World Wildlife Fund, 2012), p. 8; V. Tare et al., Environmental Flows for Kumbh 2013 at Triveni Sangam, Allahabad (World Wildlife Fund, 2013), p. 7; A. Harwood et al., Listen to the River: Lessons from a Global Review of Environmental Flow Success Stories (World Wildlife Fund UK, 2017), pp. 15-7.
71 J.D. Proctor & E. Berry, ‘Social Science on Religion and Nature’, in B. Taylor (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature (Thoemmes Continuum, 2005), pp. 1571–7, at 1571.
72 P. Mittal, ‘Supreme Court Rules out Blanket Ban, Allows 2 hour Window to Burst Crackers’, Live Mint, 23 Oct. 2018, available at: https://www.livemint.com/Politics/WgGTgSZuT3nzkNdC9amZ6J/SC-refuses-blanket-ban-on-firecrackers-allows-conditional-s.html.
73 D.E. Sherkat & C.G. Ellison, ‘Structuring the Religion-Environment Connection: Identifying Religious Influences on Environmental Concern and Activism’ (2007) 46(1) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, pp. 71–85, at 74–5; E. Woodrum & M.J. Wolkomir, ‘Religious Effects on Environmentalism’ (1997) 17(2) Sociological Spectrum, pp. 223–34, at 233; Boersema, Blowers & Martin, n. 66 above; W. Jenkins & C.K. Chapple, ‘Religion and Environment’ (2011) 36(1) Annual Review of Environment and Resources, pp. 441–63.
74 G. Tarabou, ‘Ruling on Rituals: Courts of Law and Religious Practices in Contemporary Hinduism’ (2018) 17 South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, pp. 1–20, at 1.
76 Ganga, n. 1 above, para. 16.
77 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, National Green Tribunal (NGT) Judgment, 1 Jan. 2015 (the judgment refers to the Ganga as a Holy River).
78 S. Jolly & Z. Makuch, ‘Procedural and Substantive Innovations Propounded by the Indian Judiciary in Balancing Protection of Environment and Development: A Legal Analysis’, in C. Voigt & Z. Makuch (eds), Courts and the Environment (Edward Elgar, 2018), pp. 142–68, at 142.
79 S. Jolly, ‘The Vedanta (Niyamgiri) Case: Promoting Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development’, in S. Atapattu, C. Gonzalez & S. Seck (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development (Cambridge University Press, 2021 forthcoming).
80 I. Chaturvedi, ‘A Critical Study of Free and Prior Informed Consent in the Development of the Right to Development: Can Consent be Withheld?’ (2014) 5 Journal of Indian Law & Society, pp. 37–60.
81 A. Kothari & S. Bajpai, ‘Rivers and Human Rights: We Are the River, the River Is Us’ (2017) 52(37) Economic & Political Weekly, pp. 103–19, at 108.
82 R. Brara, ‘Courting Nature: Advances in Indian Jurisprudence’, in A. Hillebret & M. Berros (eds), Can Nature Have Rights? (RCC Perspectives, 2017), pp. 31–7, at 35.
83 Press Trust of India, ‘Floating Bodies, Funeral on Banks Main Causes of Ganga Pollution: ITBP’, The Economic Times, 21 Dec. 2015, available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/floating-bodies-funeral-on-banks-main-causes-of-ganga-pollution-itbp/articleshow/50273325.cms?from=mdr.
84 Harvard Divinity School, ‘Pollution and India's Living River’, Hinduism Case Study, 2018, p. 1, available at: https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/relgion-in-context/case-studies/climate-change/pollution-indias-living-river.
85 H.S. Bal, ‘The Transformation of India is Nearly Complete’, New York Times, 11 Nov. 2019, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/india-ayodhya-temple-ruling.html; M. Vaishnav, ‘Religious Nationalism and India's Future’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 4 Apr. 2019, available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/04/04/religious-nationalism-and-india-s-future-pub-78703.
86 IANS, ‘NGP Has Improved Ganga Water Quality: Govt’, Outlook, 10 Feb. 2020, available at: https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/ngp-has-improved-ganga-water-quality-govt/1730874.
87 S. Ghosh, ‘NGT Holds Sri Sri's Art of Living Responsible for Damage to Yamuna's Floodplains’, The Hindu, 7 Dec. 2017, available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ngt-holds-sri-sris-art-of-living-responsible-for-damaging-yamuna-floodplains/article21289249.ece.
88 The SCI, in 2017, decided to strike down the practice of ‘triple Talaq’ (the pronouncement of instant divorce by a Muslim husband against his wife) as arbitrary and violative of the constitutional guarantee of equality under Art. 14. The judgment was succeeded by the passing of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 2019, which made triple Talaq illegal and punishable by law. The contents of the judgment and the consequent law have been used by entities to further political debate on religious personal law: Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1; see also ‘Examining the Political Will Behind the Triple Talaq Debate: A Reading List’, EPW Engage, 14 Aug. 2018, available at: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/examining-political-will-behind-triple-talaq-reading-list.
89 ‘Ganga Politics: How the Holy River Turned into the Epicentre of Campaigning in UP Ahead of Lok Sabha Polls’, Firstpost, 18 Mar. 2019, available at: https://www.firstpost.com/politics/ganga-politics-how-the-holy-river-turned-into-the-epicentre-of-campaigning-in-up-ahead-of-lok-sabha-polls-6281341.html.
90 State of Uttarakhand v. Mohd Salim, n. 19 above.
91 Glaciers, n. 2 above, para. 60.
92 A. Hutchison, ‘The Whanganui River as a Legal Person’ (2014) 39(3) Alternative Law Journal, pp. 179–82, at 180.
93 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 791; Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5802.
94 Diwan Advocates, ‘Notice Slammed Against Human River Ganga’, Diwan Advocates, 2 May 2017, available at: http://www.diwanadvocates.com/notice-slammed-against-human-river-ganga.
95 N. Naffine, Law's Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin, and the Legal Person (Hart, 2009), p. 133.
96 E. O'Donnell & J. Talbot-Jones, ‘Legal Rights for Rivers: What Does This Actually Mean?’ (2017) 32(1) Australian Environment Review, pp. 159–62, at 159; E. O'Donnell, ‘At the Intersection of the Sacred and the Legal: Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India’ (2018) 30(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 135–44; Martuwarra River of Life et al., ‘Recognizing the Martuwarra's First Law Right to Life as a Living Ancestral Being’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 541–68.
97 C.D. Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review, pp. 450–501.
99 E. O'Donnell & E. MacPherson, ‘Voice, Power and Legitimacy: The Role of the Legal Person in River Management in New Zealand, Chile and Australia’ (2018) 23(1) Australasian Journal of Water Resources, pp. 35–44; C. Clark et al., ‘Can You Hear the Rivers Sing? Legal Personhood, Ontology, and the Nitty-Gritty of Governance’ (2019) 45(4) Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 787–844, at 820; L. Schimmöller, ‘Paving the Way for Rights of Nature in Germany: Lessons Learnt from Legal Reform in New Zealand and Ecuador’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 569–92.
100 Glaciers, n. 2 above, para. 61.
102 G. Curtis, ‘The Checkered Career of Parens Patriae: The State as Parent or Tyrant?’ (1976) 25(4) De Paul Law Review, pp. 895–915, at 896.
103 Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc v. Union of India and Ors, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 597.
104 Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (2017) 6 SCC 730.
105 Glaciers, n. 2 above, para. 63.3. The judgment identifies the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand; Director of the NAMAMI Gange Project; Praveen Kumar (Director of NMCG); Ishwar Singh (Legal Adviser, NAMAMI Gange Project); Advocate General, State of Uttarakhand; Dr Balram K. Gupta (Director (Academics) Chandigarh Judicial Academy); and M.C. Mehta, Senior Advocate, Hon. Supreme Court, as the persons in loco parentis. See generally P. Srivastava, ‘Legal Personality of Ganga and Ecocentrism: A Critical Review’ (2019) 4(1) Cambridge Law Review, pp. 151–68.
106 Stone, n. 97 above, p. 466.
107 Z. Holladay, ‘Public Interest Litigation in India as a Paradigm for Developing Nations’ (2012) 19(2) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, pp. 555–73.
108 Ganga, n. 1 above, para. 19.
109 In an industrial accident that occurred in June 2020 in Vizag, despite the victims filing petitions before the NGT Southern Bench, the NGT Principal Bench in Delhi took suo moto action. When this action was challenged by the company, the list of respondents who were served notice did not include the petitioners, effectively reducing the petitioners to mere spectators; see H. Moosa & N. Chaudhary, ‘Expeditious But Not Effective: Exercise of NGT's Suo Moto Powers in Industrial Accidents Cases’, Livelaw, 28 July 2020, available at: https://livelaw.in/columns/expeditious-but-not-effective-exercise-of-ngts-suo-moto-powers-in-industrial-accidents-cases-160613.
110 Glaciers, n. 2 above, para. 62; R. Colwell, S. Carr-Wilson & C. Sandborn, Legal Personality of Natural Features: Recent International Developments and Applicability in Canada (Environmental Law Clinic, 2017), p. 18; C. Cullinan, ‘A History of Wild Law’, in P. Burdon (ed.), Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence (Wakefield Press, 2011), pp. 12–23, at 18.
111 V. Shiva, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India, Kali for Women (Zed Press, 1988), p. 179.
112 Glaciers, n. 2 above, para. 53.
114 Center for Social Justice Studies et al. v. Presidency of the Republic et al., Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-622/16, 10 Nov. 2016.
116 The Court relied on the following judgments: Yogendra Nath Naskar, n. 33 above, and Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors, 1999 (5) SCC 50; these judgments conferred legal personality on Hindu idols. Additionally, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Shri Som Nath Dass & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 1421, conferred legal personality on the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikh faith.
117 Stone, n. 97 above, p. 457.
118 Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
119 T. Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Bell Tower, 1999), p. 5.
121 See generally E. O'Donnell, Legal Rights for Rivers: Competition, Collaboration and Water Governance (Routledge 2018); A. Dyschkant, ‘Legal Personhood: How We Are Getting It Wrong’ (2015) 4 Illinois Law Review, pp. 2075–110.
122 Constitutión Politica de la República del Ecuador (Constitution of Ecuador), Arts 71–4.
123 Te Urewera Act, No. 51, 2014 (New Zealand).
124 Ibid., s. 21; see E. Macpherson, J. Torres Ventura & F. Clavijo Ospina, ‘Constitutional Law, Ecosystems, and Indigenous Peoples in Colombia: Biocultural Rights and Legal Subjects’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 521–40.
125 Te Awa Tupua Act, n. 14 above.
128 Center for Social Justice Studies, n. 114 above.
133 Lillo, A., ‘Is Water Simply a Flow? Exploring an Alternative Mindset for Recognizing Water as a Legal Person’ (2018) 19(2) Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 165–90Google Scholar.
134 White, H., ‘Indigenous Peoples, the International Trend toward Legal Personhood for Nature, and the United States’ (2018) 43(1) American Indian Law Review, pp. 129–65Google Scholar; C.W. Chen, ‘Indigenous Rights in International Law’ (2017) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, pp. 1–25.
135 UN General Assembly, ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (13 Sept. 2007), UN Doc. A/RES/61/295, available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html.
136 C.R Bijoy, S. Gopalakrishnan & S. Khanna, India and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Constitutional, Legislative and Administrative Provisions concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in India and their Relation to International Law on Indigenous Peoples (Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foundation, 2010), p. 10.
137 Constitution of India, Art. 39(b).
139 Jolly & Makuch, n. 78 above, p. 143.
140 Gill, G.N., Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal (Routledge, 2017), p. 22Google Scholar; Atapattu, S., Emerging Principles of International Environmental Law (Brill, 2007), p. 476CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gill, G.N., ‘Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal and the Expert Members’ (2016) 5(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
141 L. Krämer & E. Orlando, Principles of Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2018), p. 35.
142 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors (2012) 3 SCC 277, para. 14.
143 Mandiberg, S.F., ‘Locating the Environmental Harm in Environmental Crimes’ (2009) 4 Utah Law Review, pp. 1177–222, at 1187Google Scholar.
144 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 SCC (3) 212.
145 Nomani, M.Z.M., ‘The Human Right to Environment in India: Legal Precepts and Judicial Doctrines in Critical Perspective’ (2000) 5(2) Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 113–34Google Scholar.
146 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2721; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SCW 43.
147 Saloni Ailawadi v. Volkswagen India Private Ltd, 2019 SCCOnLine NGT 69.
148 Evans, M., ‘Parens Patriae and Public Trust: Litigating Environmental Harm per se’ (2016) 12(1) McGill Journal of Sustainable Development Law & Policy, pp. 1–22Google Scholar; Nash, R.F., The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.
149 C. Bhushan, S. Banerjee & I. Bezbaroa, Green Tribunal, Green Approach: The Need for Better Implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle (Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), 2018). The CSE has pointed out the following as the primary reasons that hinder the efficient application of the PPP in India: lack of monitoring, the absence of an appropriate formula, the difficulty of locating and identifying polluters, bureaucratic control, and the lack of implementation by states.
151 Lazarus, R.J., ‘Changing Conceptions of Property and Sovereignty in Natural Resources: Questioning the Public Trust Doctrine’ (1986) 71 Iowa Law Review, pp. 631–716, at 637–41Google Scholar.
152 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.
153 M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 3 SCR 1066.
154 K.M. Chinappa v. Union of India, 2002 (8) SCALE 204.
155 Smith, G.P. II, ‘Environmental Hedonism or, Securing the Environment through the Common Law’ (2015) 40(1) William & Mary Environmental & Policy Review, pp. 65–114Google Scholar.
156 D.G. Musiker, T. France & L.A. Hallenbeck, ‘The Public Trust and Parens Patriae Doctrines: Protecting Wildlife in Uncertain Political Times’ (1995) 16 Public Land Law Review, pp. 87–116, at 105.
No CrossRef data available.