PIl and writs in case of environment related issues

One of the vital aspects of Indian Constitution is written Jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court under section 32 and all higher courts in accordance with section of section 226. The order or order of recruitment, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo. warrant and certiorari, as applicable. This paved the way for one of the most dynamic and effective environmental protection mechanisms – public interest litigation. Generally, writs of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition are used in case of environmental cases.

For example, Mandamus (a mandate that dictates the actions of a public authority when the authority is vested with power and unfairly refuses to exercise it) will oppose municipality as with sewerage, street cleaning and garbage collection (Rampal v. Rajasthan), the state pollution control board may be forced to take action against an industry that dumps excessive pollutants. Written approvals and prohibitions are issued when a body acts in excess of its powers, violates the rules of natural justice, acts in accordance with unconstitutional legislation, makes a clear error in the register a sign, etc. For example, a certiorari document will be against a municipal body, which, for example, examines a builder’s claims and authorizes construction in violation of development rules, providing garden area for construction of offices, store rooms etc. Likewise, against the water pollution control board that allowed the industry to improperly discharge wastewater that exceeds regulatory levels.

Certiorari’s order will target the city government, which authorizes construction contrary to development codes or practices that are outside the jurisdiction or violate the rules of natural justice, for example by illegally imposing sanctions on an office building in a designated garden area. When a fundamental right is violated, including the right to a healthy environment, Article 32 and 226 provide an appropriate remedy.

In E. Sampat Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu[1], the individual was concerned by the noise pollution and excessive vibration caused by electric motors, diesel engines and generators produced by electric motors, diesel engines and other engines generators used by a hotel. High court ruled that the injured person could leave a written claim, rejecting the hotel owner’s claim that a civil action would be an appropriate remedy.

​Public Interest Litigation describes legal action taken to protect or enforce rights enjoyed by members of the public or the majority of the population.

In a public interest case, the subject of a complaint is usually a complaint about a violation of the basic human rights of the poor and homeless, or about the content or behavior of a policy. Government, this case is not completely controversial (in procedural antagonistic cases, each party presents its own evidence by cross-examining the other party) and where the judge plays an important role in organizing and initiating legal proceedings and monitoring the application of remedies.

Since the 1980s, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has changed both the procedural landscape and the role of the highest judiciary in India. The justices of the Supreme Court and the High Court are required to hear complaints from the public about clear violations of human rights committed by the state, or uphold public policies enshrined in statutes or constitutional provisions. This new type of litigation is known as public interest litigation.

​In Ramdas Shenoe v. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, the Supreme Court protects the right of taxpayers to challenge illegal penalties for converting a building into a movie theatre

In Mahesh R Desai V, Union of India, a journalist filed a complaint with the Supreme Court for pollution of the country’s coastline due to unplanned development in violation of a directive from the central government. The Supreme Court registered the letter as a petition, asked the committee to assist in appointing an attorney for the petition, and sent a notice to the Union and all state governments.

[1] E. Sampat Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1998, AIHC 4498

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: