Municipal Council, Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622. stench and stink caused by the excertion by nearby slum-dwellers

It may also be noticed that there are certain important constitutional provisions which give the citizens the right to approach the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India to protect their fundamental rights. Article 226 of the Constitution gives the right to citizens to approach the High Court to enforce their fundamental rights. Article 226 of the Constitution gives the right to citizens to approach the High Court to enforce their fundamental rights and the High Courts are given the power to issue various writs.  Article 32 of the Indian Constitution could be invoked by the citizens for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, namely, the Fundamental Rights. It is also to be noted that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees one of the important fundamental right to the citizens and says that no person shall be deprived of his life “right to life” contained in Article 21 has been given a very wide interpretation by the Supreme Court of India. Article 48-A which is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy states that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Part IV – A was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 51-A(g) thereof specifically says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.

Till 1980,not much contribution was made by the courts in preserving the environment. One of the earliest cases which came to the Supreme Court of India was Municipal Council, Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622. Ratlam is a city in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. Some of the residents of the municipality filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and there is stench and stink caused by the excertion by nearby slum-dwellers and that there was nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the municipality to prepare a plan with six months to remove the nuisance. The order passed by the SDM was approved by the High Court. The Municipality came in appeal before the Supreme Court of India and contended that it did not have sufficient funds to carry out the work directed by the SDM. The Supreme Court of India gave directions to the Municipality to comply with the directions and said that paucity of funds shall not be a defence to carry out the basic duties by the local authorities.

Thereafter, series of cases were filled before the Supreme Court and there was a dynamic change in the whole approach of the courts in matters concerning environment.

The Supreme Court of India interpreted Article 21 which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, to include the right to a wholesome environment and held that a litigant may assert his or her right to a healthy environment against the State by a writ petition to the Supreme Court or a High Court. The powers of a High Court under Article 226 or those of the Supreme Court under Article 32 are not confined to the prerogative writs derived from English law, but extended to directions or orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. The term ” writs in the nature of ” widened the court’s discretionary powers in granting relief by releasing Indian courts from the procedural technicalities that govern procedures and rules in English law. The courts are empowered to give declaratory relief, issue an injunction or quash an action without recourse to specific writs and this enabled the courts in choosing proper relief and the court can issue a writ, a mandamus to command action by a public authority when an authority is vested with power and wrongfully refuses to exercise, to undo what has been done in contravention of a statute. Writs could be issued against an administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial authority. An applicant seeking a mandamus must show the duty sought to be enforced is a public duty, a duty created under the constitution, a statute or some rule of common law and that duty is mandatory and not discretionary. The broad language used in Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution enables the courts to fashion relief and pass orders consistent with their own assessment of the public interest and principles of equity.

By the second half of 1970s, the public interest litigation become a model litigation relaxing the standard of standing. The public interest litigation altered the landscape and the role of the higher judiciary in India. The Supreme Court and the High Court dealt with series of public grievances or flagrant human right violations by the State.  In a public interest case, the subject matter of litigation is typically a grievance against the violation of basic human rights of the poor and helpless and the petitioner seeks to champion a public cause for the benefit of all society.