COMPENDIUM OF SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN ENVIRONMENT RELATED CASES

India - Constitutional Rights, Environmental Education

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 860 OF 1991 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, G.N. RAY, J., and A.S. ANAND, J.

Petitioner, M.C. Mehta filed this application in the public interest, asking the Supreme Court to: (1) issue direction to cinema halls that they show slides with information on the environment; (2) issue direction for the spread of information relating to the environment on All India Radio; and (3) issue direction that the study of the environment become a compulsory subject in schools and colleges.

Petitioner made this application on the grounds that Article 51A(g) of the Constitution requires every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. To fulfil these obligations to the environment, the Petitioner argued that people needed to be better educated about the environment.

Legal Framework

Constitution of India, Article 5lA(g).

Water Pollution Control Act of 1974.

Air Pollution Control Act 1981.

Environment Protection Act of 1986.

Held

The Court noted the world-wide concern about environmental matters had increased greatly since the early 1970s. The Court also noted that the enormous increase in human population in the last fifty years, as well as changes in lifestyles, have necessitated that environmental issues be given more attention, and that it is the Government’s obligation to keep citizens informed about such matters.

(1) The State Governments and Union Territories will require, as a condition of licenses to all cinema halls, touring cinemas and video parlours, that at least two slides/messages provided by the Ministry of Environment, and which deal with environmental issues, will be shown free of cost as part of each show. Failure to comply with this order is grounds for cancellation of a license.

(2) The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting will start producing short films which deal with the environment and pollution. One such film will be shown, as far as practicable, in one show every day by the cinema halls.

(3) All India Radio and Dooradarshan will take steps to make and broadcast interesting programmes on the environment and pollution. The Attorney-General has said that five to seven minutes can be devoted to these programs each day on these radio/TV stations.

(4) The University Grants Commission will take appropriate steps to require universities to prescribe a course on the environment. They should consider making this course a compulsory subject.

As far as education up to the college level, every State Government and every Education Board connected with education up to the matriculation stage, as well as intermediate colleges, is required to take steps to enforce compulsory education on the environment in a graded way.

Compliance is required for the next academic year.

The (sickly) green face of Indian education

Call it the apathy of the Indian media to environmental issues, blame an obsession with flamboyant trivia such as India’s rare cricket win over Australia, or view it as a measure of how much the media care about education: An important recent mandate by the Supreme Court to “green” curricula at all levels of education received barely any commentary, and only skimpy reports confined to obscure corners of national newspapers.

Tracing the history of the case that culminated in the December 18 court order may itself constitute an academic exercise of sorts. One would have to go all the way back to 1991 when the court responded favorably to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that M C Mehta - perhaps the world’s best-known environmental lawyer - had filed pleading the court to order education bodies to introduce environmental studies as a compulsory subject at all levels of Indian education.

Mehta had made the plea invoking clause (g) of article (51 A) of the constitution, “with a view to educating the people of India about their social obligation in matter of upkeep of the environment in proper shape and making them alive to their obligation not to act as polluting agencies or factors”. Headed Fundamental Duties, article (51 A) was incorporated into the Indian constitution through an amendment in 1976; its clause (g) “requires every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for all living creatures”.

In its order, delivered on November 22, 1991, the court had directed the central government, states, union territories and educational organizations responsible for prescribing syllabi to comply with its ruling by the academic year 1992-1993; it had also mandated commercial cinema halls to allow a minimum number of free slide shows on the theme of environmental protection and asked authorities to cancel the licenses of errant halls. However, in a not unusual display of government agencies’ indifference to environmental concerns - especially as expressed within the generally neglected realm of education - the directive was anything but honored.

So Mehta petitioned the court again on July 21, 2003, whereupon the court issued notices to the same state agencies, seeking their responses regarding the implementation of its 1991 order. The court failed to receive responses from all the parties within the stipulated time; so on September 22 it slapped a fine of Rs 15, 000 (US$329) each on the 10 defaulting states, which it also asked to file affidavits. Out of those 10 states, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Haryana failed to oblige even thereafter; so on October 28 the court summoned their chief secretaries to answer “why contempt of court proceedings not be initiated against them for deliberately disobeying the court orders”. (About a month later, on November 25, the court also had to issue notices to Tamil Nadu regarding contradictions in its request for exemptions from filing the affidavit before the deadline; on December 9, the chief secretary apologized in that regard on behalf of that state).

On December 18, in resuming the hearing of Mehta’s PIL, the court ordered all of the same agencies to implement the same old directive: now from the 2004-2005 academic year. The situation now, however, is a little different: This time the court has taken it on itself to oversee the process directly, one of whose chief elements includes for it to approve the syllabi that the agencies are ordered to turn in by April 14.

The court’s order, though its own rehash with a fresh and mandatory urgency, has a wider context than has been acknowledged in the press. (Of course, as noted earlier, the Indian press has relegated this whole issue to insignificance, even at the level of news.) A number of factors actually point to the probability that the order at best extends and empowers the vapid and, in many ways, crudely technocratic Indian bureaucracy; at worst, it outclasses the bureaucracy in its lack of imagination and anti-democratic paternalism.

For one, it is ludicrous for the court to assume that the myriad agencies that have dishonored it for the past 12 years would now be excited about and capable of activating - genuinely teaching - the syllabi in classrooms once they are designed and introduced. Short of that, how is the court going to ensure anything significant in the sensitive area of education? The court’s own answer is of course increased and closer supervision: but is that the answer or a mere bureaucratic imitation - hence prolonging - of the larger bureaucracy called the government of India it has sought to rectify ?

The fact of the matter is that the Indian education system, a single but formidable component of the government, is an unwieldy bureaucracy still firmly rooted in the colonial past: Qualitatively it was the branch of British colonial government entrusted to breed clerks and petty officials to serve the Crown; administratively it was and continues to be highly centralized, even though India has a large number of universities, most of which are geographically divided into small colleges.

Anybody who has an Indian education is likely to agree that most of it is based on learning by rote and time-bound annual exams. In such a system, enlightened awareness and ethical consciousness of any kind are hard to impart, cultivate, and reward: Individual teachers have neither the authority nor the training to design their own syllabi or even exams. The exams, in most cases occurring only once at the end of the academic year, typically appear as question papers secretly designed by teachers discretely picked up by central committees; as for their delivery, students sit for three grueling hours to handwrite answers they are supposed to have imbibed along the year through memorization: to time-tested questions constituting the papers.

Contrary to what India’s educated class would like to believe (despite its often vocal internal complaints and skepticism): the mainstream Indian education system typically desensitizes and standardizes otherwise curious young minds - students and freshly appointed teachers alike. Complementing this counter-creativity machine are the numerous standardized competitive exams that high school and college graduates are expected to pass in order to become anybodies from bank clerks, railway executives and insurance officials to revenue collectors with state or central government. (The great Indian family hardly helps there as it steers its young members deeper into self-centered career games for the sake of pecuniary gains.)

By deliberately pushing the theme of environment into this soulless quagmire called Indian education, the court has paved the way for the stultification of any ecological consciousness that the Indian youngster may have inherited from custom and spiritual traditions. Worse, after going through the mandatory courses, the young and increasingly consumerist graduate might actually begin to believe that he knows a thing or two about the environment - more than, let’s say, the uneducated poor, the scheduled tribes, or the “ecosystem people” (a-la Madhav Gadgil and Ramchandra Guha). By virtue of that self-congratulatory myopia, he may in fact victimize India’s social ecology as well as himself. In a country that can boast of only 65.38 percent literacy, it is not difficult, especially for the quasi-urban college graduate, to consider himself smarter than the huge illiterate minority.

Here, it is difficult to resist thinking whether the court is not myopic itself: After all, it is the same court that not too long ago held activist and author Arundhati Roy guilty for a contemptibly flimsy charge of contempt of court, and which has quite a reputation for flaunting its own immunity from public criticism on the basis of the same arcane, feudalistic law traceable to the yester-century of British colonialism.

On that count, what is dreadful in the current legal instance is the way the court assumed the authority to verify and approve uniform courses on environment for such an ecologically, economically, linguistically and culturally diverse region as India. The court has sought that uniformity by directing the central agencies of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the University Grants Commission and the All India Council of Technical Education to coordinate among themselves; but, again, those agencies are altogether too removed from the local geographical and classroom contexts within which the courses they would suggest would be taught.

For all that, those agencies are quite likely - in some sense obligated - to present a highly statist, government-of-India view of the environment and environmental problems: in which big dams, for example, may well be touted as ecological solutions rather than the gargantuan headaches they really are. Likewise, one could also expect biotechnology, bioengineering and other high-tech, capital-intensive knowledge and infrastructures to be showcased as progressive solutions to environmental damage. One could also expect a rather urban, middle class profile of the environment - in which pollution rather than development and displacement would hold the center stage of analysis. Unsurprisingly, the court has already suggested to the aforementioned three agencies to seek advice from the Central Pollution Control Board as they design the syllabi.

No less important, however, are the presumably non-environmental issues of academic freedom, on one hand, and political freedom on the other. What arrogates the court to decide what teachers must teach in their classes, to mandate a certain thematic not only for under-age school students but also for mature adults at college? As it is, the typical Indian school kid feels, and most certainly is, overburdened mainly because he or she must learn how to compress to three momentous hours everything that has been learnt over the course of one year. The overburdening has already been cited by the state of West Bengal and the NCERT as a reason for their erstwhile reluctance to follow the court’s original directives.

However, under the new pressure, the authorities have agreed to replace some of the previous readings with environmental themes. What that shows, though, is that the solution to India’s knowledge woes - including in the environmental sector - lies in a radical decentralization and localization of education, in its being made more intimate than exam-based: But the ultimate solution may actually reside in the removal of the government monopoly over academic certification at all levels.

Last but not least, it is quite a stretch for the court to suggest that the clause (g) - which “requires every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment ... and to have compassion for all living creatures” - also requires going through government sermons on the environment, or that it is extendable to commercial establishments such as cinema halls. The imprudence in that jurisprudence is echoed by an article by Shobita Punja, “Learning to Care for their World” (The Telegraph, Kolkata, December 3, 2003). Inspired by one of the hearings through this long legal battle, Punja argues: “On the same principle we really need to make a similar petition regarding the compulsory teaching of India’s composite heritage so that every child in this country (who is privileged enough to have gone to school) knows the fundamental duties of every Indian (51A). Here too it is the responsibility of every state government to inform and teach our children how - clause (e) and (f) - to promote harmony and the spirit of brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture”.

I have a hunch that Punja has drawn the right conclusions from the court’s verdict: It tells us to mistake state-sponsored nationalism for environmentalism.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 860 of 1991

Before : Ranganath Misra, C.J.

G.N. Ray, J.

A.S. Anand, J.

Decided: 22 November 1991

Application by Advocate in the public interest ? relief claimed under Article 32 of Constitution ? fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve natural environment under Article 51A(g) of Constitution ? need for appropriate awareness among the people about what the law required ? application to Court to issue appropriate directions to cinema halls, radio and television, schools etc. for creating awareness of social obligation to protect environment.

The Petitioner was a practicing Advocate who has consistently taken an interest in matters relating to environment and pollution. He made application under Article 32 of the Constitution for the Court to issue appropriate directions to cinema halls to exhibit slides, and radio and television to broadcast programmes, containing information and message relating to the environment. He also asked that environment be made a compulsory subject in schools and colleges. The Petitioner made this application on the basis that Article 51A(g) of the Constitution imposed a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. He argued that the people should be educated about their social obligations relating to the environment.

The Attorney-General, appearing for the Union of India, did not contest the case and agreed to cooperate to work out the procedure by which some of the Petitioner’s prayers could be granted.

Held:

(2) Following the population explosion over the last 50 years life has become competitive and age-old norms of good living are no longer followed. Against this backdrop if laws are to be enforced and the malaise of pollution kept under control, it is necessary that people be made aware of pollution and its consequences.

(3 Keeping the citizens informed is an obligation of the Government.

(4) The Court therefore accepted in principle the prayers made by the Petitioner and expressed its satisfaction at the stand taken by the Attorney-General.

(5) The Court issued the following directions:

That State Governments and Union Territories be directed to enforce as a condition of license to all cinema halls the free exhibition of at least two slides/messages on environment which were to be provided b the Ministry of Environment.

That the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting star producing short films on environment and pollution.

That All-India Radio and Doordarshan take steps to make and broadcast “interesting” programmes on environment.

That every State Government and Education Board take steps to enforce compulsory education on environment by the next academic year.

The Petitioner was given leave to apply to Court from time to time for further directions if necessary.

The Order of the Court is as follows: This application is in public interest and has been filed by a practicing advocate of this Court who has consistently been taking interest in matters relating to environment and pollution. The reliefs claimed in this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution are for issuing appropriate directions to cinema exhibition halls to exhibit slides containing information and messages on environment free of cost; directions for spread of information relating to environment in national and regional languages and for broadcast thereof on the All India Radio and exposure thereof on the television in regular and short term programmes with a view to educating the people of India about their social obligation in the matter of the upkeep of the environment in proper shape and making them alive to their obligation not to act as polluting agencies or factors. There is also a prayer that environment should be made a compulsory subject in schools and colleges in a graded system so that there would be a general growth of awareness. We had issued notice to the Union of India on the petition and the Central Government has immediately responded.

2. Until 1972, general awareness of mankind to the importance of environment for the well-being of mankind had not been appropriately appreciated though over the years for more than a century there was a growing realisation that mankind had to live in tune with nature if life was to be peaceful, happy and satisfied. In the name of scientific development, man started distancing himself from Nature and even developed an urge to conquer nature. Our ancestors had known that nature was not subduable and therefore, had made it an obligation for man to surrender to nature and live in tune with it. Our Constitution underwent an amendment in 1976 by incorporating an Art. (51A) with the heading “Fundamental Duties”. C1. (g) thereof requires every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Soon after the international conference on environment the Water Pollution Control Act of 1974 came on the statute book; the Air Pollution Control Act came in 1981 and finally came the Environment Protection Act of 1986.

3. Law is a regulator of human conduct as the professors of jurisprudence say, but no law can indeed effectively work unless there is an element of acceptance by the people in society. No law works out smoothly unless the interaction is voluntary. In order that human conduct may be in accordance with the prescription of law it is necessary that there should be appropriate awareness about what the law requires and there is an element of acceptance that the requirement of law is grounded upon a philosophy which should be followed. This would be possible only when steps are taken in an adequate measure to make people aware of the indispensable necessity of their conduct being oriented in accordance with the requirements of law.

4. There has been an explosion of human population over the last 50 years. Life has become competitive. Sense of idealism in the living process has systematically eroded. As a consequence of this the age-old norms of good living are no longer followed. The anxiety to do good to the needy or for the society in general has died out, oblivious of the repercussions of one’s actions on society, everyone is prepared to do whatever is easy and convenient for his own purpose. In this backdrop if the laws are to be enforced and the malaise of pollution has to be kept under control and the environment has to be protected in an unpolluted state it is necessary that people are aware of the vice of pollution and its evil consequences.

5. We are in a democratic polity where dissemination of information is the foundation of the system. Keeping the citizens informed is an obligation of the Government. It is equally the responsibility of society to adequately educate every component of it so that the social level is kept up. We, therefore, accept on principle the prayers made by the petitioner. We are happy to find that the learned Attorney-General who appeared for the Union of India has also appreciated the stand of the Petitioner and has even co-operated to work out the procedure by which some of the prayers could be granted.

6. We dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(1) Respondents 1, 2 and 3 shall issue appropriate directions to the State Governments and Union Territories to invariably enforce as a condition of license of all cinema halls, touring cinemas and video parlours to exhibit free of cost at least two slides/messages on environment in each show undertaken by them. The Ministry of Environment should within two months from now come out with appropriate slide material which would be brief but efficiently carry the message home on various aspects of environment and pollution. This material should be circulated directly to the Collectors who are the licensing authorities for the cinema exhibition halls under the respective state laws for compliance without any further direction and helping the cinema halls and video parlours to comply with the requirements of our order. Failure to comply with our order should be treated as a ground for cancellation of the license by the appropriate authorities. The material for the slides should be such that it would at once be impressive, striking and leave an Impact on every one who sees the slide.

(2) The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India should without delay start producing information films of short duration as is being done now on various aspects of environment and pollution bringing out the benefits for society on the environment being protected and the hazards involved in the environment being polluted. Mind catching aspects should be made the central theme of such short films. One such film should be shown, as far as practicable, in one show every day by the cinema halls and the Central Government and the State Governments are directed to ensure compliance of this condition from February 1, 1992.

(3) Realising the importance of the matter of environment and the necessity of protecting it in an unpolluted form as we had suggested to learned Attorney-General to have a dialogue with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as to the manner the All-India Radio and Doordarshan can assist this process of education. We are happy to indicate that learned Attorney-General has told us that five to seven minutes can be devoted every day and there could be, once a week, a longer programme. We do not want to project an impression that we are authorities on the subject, but we would suggest to the programme controlling authorities of the Doordarshan and the All-India Radio to take proper steps to make interesting programmes and broad cast the same on the radio and exhibit the same on the television. The national network as also the State Doordarshan Centres should immediately take steps to implement this direction so that from February 1, 1992, regular compliance can be made.

(4) We accept on principle that through the medium of education awareness of the environment and its problems related to pollution should be taught as a compulsory subject. Learned Attorney-General pointed out to us that the Central Government is associated with education at the higher levels and the University Grants Commission can monitor only the under-graduate and post-graduate studies. The rest of it, according to him, is a State subject. He has agreed that the University Grants Commission will take appropriate steps immediately to give effect to what we have said, i.e., requiring the Universities to prescribe a course on environment. They would consider the feasibility of making this a compulsory subject at every level in college education. So far as education up to the college level is concerned, we would require every State Government and every Education Board connected with education up to the matriculation stage or even intermediate colleges to immediately take steps to enforce compulsory education on environment in a graded way. This should be so done that in the next academic year there would be compliance of this requirement.

7. We have not considered it necessary to hear the State Government and the other interested groups as by now there is a general acceptance throughout the world as also in our country that protection of environment and keeping it free of pollution is an indispensable necessity for life to survive on earth. If that be the situation, every on must turn his immediate attention to the proper care to sustain environment in a decent way.

8. We dispose of the matter with the aforesaid direction but give liberty to Mr. Mehta to apply to the Court from time to time for further directions, if necessary.

Note: Article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution reads as follows: “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. “ The “Part” referred to is Part III dealing with fundamental rights. Part IVA which contains Article 51A setting out the fundamental duties of every citizens was added to the Constitution in 1976. The Supreme Court has thus applied Article 32 (1) not only for the protection of fundamental rights but also for the enforcement of fundamental duties.