Environmental Governance in India
Catalytic Role of the Indian Institute of
Ecology and Environment
If human society is to endure not for just
another century but for thousands and
thousands of years, we need to learn a way
of life that could be sustained by the
Mother Earth. Human society must learn to
control population size and develop more
efficient technologies that produce as
little harmful waste as possible. We must
learn to rely on resources that are
renewable. A society based on these ideas is
called a sustainable society.
We should long for having a sustainable
world so profoundly different from the way
we live which cannot be imagined without a
strenuous exercise of mind. Like human body
the Mother Earth has its organs that adjust
to changes - in climate, nutrient levels and
other aspects of the environment to maintain
its stability. Just as the human organism is
made of trillions of cells and so is the
world organism; each of us is a cell of Gaia
(Greek word for Mother Earth).
Changing our ways will be a colossal task
which may involve arduous work but as an
optimist we should view the third millennium
with a cleaner and greener mind and pledge
to work on new pollution control
technologies as the answer to our polluted
waters and skies by better treating our
Mother Earth by not to rival nature but to
cooperate with it and live in harmony.
We must guide the human race living in a
historic transitional period of burgeoning
awareness of the conflict between human
Activities and environmental constraints,
preparing to venture into a new century and
a new millennium and to finally help save
the fragile and endangered planet with the
natural resources already overtaxed and for
developing a critical path to governance
through modern ideas for reducing the toll
exacted in supporting daily life and the
ever growing problems on the earth exerting
profound pressures on the environment.
As the human race prepares to venture into a
new century, conversations and news reports
are peppered with references to our fragile
and endangered planet. The earth is five
billion years old, and over the eons it has
endured bombardment by meteors, abrupt
shifts in its magnetic fields, dramatic
realignment of its land masses, and the
advance and retreat of massive ice mountains
that reshaped its surface. Life, too, has
proved resilient: In the more than three and
a half billion years first forms of life
emerged, biological species have come and
gone, but life has persisted without
interruption. In fact, no matter what we
humans do, it is unlikely that we could
suppress the powerful and chemical forces
that drive the earth system.
Although we cannot completely disrupt the
earth system, we do affect it significantly
as we use energy and emit pollutants in our
quest to provide food, shelter, and a host
of other products for the world's growing
population. We release chemicals that gnaw
holes in the ozone shield that protects us
from harmful ultraviolet radiation, and we
burn fuels that emit heat - trapping gases
that build up in the atmosphere. Our
expanding numbers overtax the agricultural
potential of the land.
Tropical forests that are home for millions
of biological species are cleared for
agriculture, grazing, and logging. Raw
materials are drawn from the earth to stoke
the engines of the growing world economy,
and we treat the atmosphere, land, and
waters as receptacles for the wastes
generated as we consume energy and goods in
our everyday lives. Scientific evidence and
theory indicate that as a result of such
Activities, the global environment is
undergoing profound changes. In essence, we
are conducting an uncontrolled experiment
with the planet to the extent that we have
come to a point of no return and we may face
the disaster any time.
The world is finite, but it will have to
provide food and energy to meet the needs of
a doubled world population some time in the
twentyfirst century. Its natural resources,
already overtaxed in many areas, will have
to sustain a world economy that may be five
to ten times larger than the present one.
This cannot be done if humans continue to
pursue current patterns.
As people continue their endless quest for
new materials, new energy forms, and new
processes, the constraints imposed by
depletion of natural resources and the
pollution caused by human Activities have
brought society to a crossroads. Abundance
coexists with extreme need and our very
existence may be in danger owing to
mismanagement and over exploitation of the
environment. In spite of all the
technological and scientific triumphs of the
twentieth century, there have never been so
many poor, illiterate, or unemployed people
in the world, and their numbers are growing.
As they struggle to survive, they have
little choice but to pursue Activities that
may undermine the environment, the natural
resource base on which they depend, and the
conditions that sustain life itself.
Third World nations seem convinced that the
poverty they endure is not a mere aberration
of international economic relations that can
be corrected by minor adjustments, but
rather is the unspoken premise of the
present economic order. Developing countries
have had to produce more and sell more in
order to earn money to repay debt and pay
for imports. The amount of coffee, cotton,
or copper they must produce to buy a
technology or an equipment keep increasing.
This has caused people to place extra stress
on the environment, which has fuelled soil
erosion, accelerated the cancerous process
of desertification and deforestation, and
began to threaten the genetic diversity that
is the basis for tomorrow's biotechnology,
agriculture, and food supply.
A global consensus for economic growth in
the twentyfirst century must be consistent
with sustainable development. It must take
heed of ecological constraints. If coming
five years are truly to be a period during
which we respond to the serious problems
confronting the world, issue of sustainable
global development requires special and
urgent attention.
In the totality of environment, the
biological component goes through cyclical
changes but the non-living component does
not. And the all-important fact is that the
living world sustains itself at the expense
of the non-living. A portion of the
non-living finds it way into the making of a
living object but eventually whatever had
thus moved from the non-living state of
existence into the fabric of a living
objects has got to go back to its original
state. Otherwise, ecological imbalance sets
in. In such a situation, the threat posed to
the ecology of an area comes mainly from
man, for while the non human segments of the
living world do not play any planned role
aimed at sustaining their numbers, man had
grown too clever to be outmaneuvered by
nature. On the other long. Now, he finds
that the game did not pay off. He realises
that while he had been clever, he had not
been wise. Hence, this reappraisal. Thus is
born the environmentalist school. It works
towards generating a fresh awareness
regarding the importance of maintaining
environmental quality in man’s own interest.
Environmental protection is a national as
well as international responsibility. We
remember what Mahatma Gandhi said “The earth
provides enough to satisfy every man’s
needs, but not for anybody’s greed”. Based
on the motivation from the United Nations
Conference on Human Environment held at
Stockholm on 5 June 1972, a Committee was
formed for with a time period of 10 years
(1972 - 1981) for preparing the aims and
objectives, course materials, case studies,
occasional monographs with a view to
establishing the Indian Institute of Ecology
and Environment (IIEE) at New Delhi.
Accordingly the IIEE was established on the
occasion of the World Environment Day on 5
June 1980. The Silver Jubilee was celebrated
on 5th June 2005.
The Government of India keeps on setting up
different statutory bodies including the
Central Pollution Control Board, National
Eco-Afforstation Board besides National
Environment Authority (NEA) and six regional
authorities with appellate jurisdiction to
hear appeals against decisions made by the
regional authorities.
Whether these decisions stem from a genuine
concern for sound environmental governance
and overcoming administrative failures is
debatable. It has to be seen in the light of
the complete bureaucratisation of the
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)
in the last two decades.
The MoEF was established as a Scientific
Department in November 1980 following the
recommendations of the N. D. Tiwari
Committee Report. It was envisaged that the
Ministry would formulate policies and laws,
while an Environment Protection Authority,
independent of the Government, would oversee
implementation of policies and programmes
and enforcement of the laws (on the lines of
the powerful EPA in the US).
This did not happen. Instead, over the
years, the original mandate of the MoEF was
eroded by administrative cynicism and
sidelining of scientific expertise available
within the Government, even as the MoEF has
sought to takeover more regulatory
functions. Civil society perceives the
bureaucracy as disinterested in public
welfare and corrupt.
Weak governance, manifesting itself in poor
service delivery, excessive regulations,
poor enforcement of laws and uncoordinated
and wasteful public expenditure, are among
the key factors eroding national ecological
and environmental security.
This is exemplified by the thousands of
crores of rupees spent so far under the
Ganga Action Plan and the National Wasteland
Development Board without achieving their
respective mandates of cleaning the Ganga
and developing wasted lands. When the MoEF
was established, the existing Department of
Forests and Wildlife continued to be under
the Ministry of Agriculture.
But the new Department of Environment was
directly under the Prime Minister and was
envisaged as a focal point for developing
future programmes, policies and laws based
on scientific and technical analysis to
ensure environmentally-sound and sustainable
development in all sectors in the country.
With this perspective, the Department was
intended to guide and monitor the progress
of complex inter-sectoral programme
implementation both in the private and
public sectors. Three eminent scientists
served as Secretaries till May 1985.
Thereafter, the Environment and Forests and
Wildlife Departments were placed in one
Ministry headed by a Secretary from the
Indian Administrative Service. In 1987, the
Department of Environment, which was
recognised as a ‘scientific’ Department
(such as the Departments of Ocean
Development, Biotechnology, Space, Science
and Technology, and Non-Conventional
Energy), was taken out of the purview of the
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for
speedy recruitment of scientific personnel.
After the initial phase of recruitment of
scientists, however, no fresh recruitment
was made. Gradually, as senior scientists
retired, these posts were converted to
non-scientific posts and taken over by the
IAS and allied services such as Customs, the
Railways, Post and Telegraphs, etc.
No attempt was made to create an independent
cadre of scientific professionals. The
influx of career administrators has
contributed to the spread of the
bureaucratic babu culture. A sense of
urgency to integrate ecological and
environmental concerns into the
developmental process has completely
evaporated, undermining effective
coordination with other concerned Ministries
on inter-sectoral issues. Effective
environmental and ecological strategies have
not been evolved in major sectors such as
industry, transport, agriculture and
aquaculture, energy, and forestry.
‘Environment ImpAct Assessment’, which is a
multidisciplinary and multidimensional
process, is being undertaken mechanically
just to get the environmental clearance
under the Environment Protection Act,
instead of being an integrated and
continuous process from the very start of a
project. Conflicts have escalated in sectors
such as water, land use, agriculture, animal
husbandry, mining and forests, which are of
deep concern to the people, and there has
been little attempt to decentralise natural
resources management through the
institutions of self-government under the
73rd and 74th Amendment Acts. Moreover,
multiple systems of administration and
functioning in an uncoordinated manner, have
led to confusion in the implementation of
programmes and the enforcement of laws, and
also unhealthy rivalry between agencies.
For instance, two agencies concerned with
afforestation function independently - the
National Afforestation and Eco-development
Board under the MoEF, and the National
Wastelands Development Board under the
Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment.
Biodiversity conservation falls within the
purview of different Departments and
Ministries. The National Bio-Resource Board
was constituted by the Department of
Biotechnology and the National Medicinal
Plant Board by the Department of Indian
Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy
(Ministry of Health and Family Welfare).
And, under the new Biodiversity
(Conservation) Act, the MoEF is to set up a
National Biodiversity Board.
The Ministry of Water Resources is the nodal
agency for managing the water sector. It
discharges its mandate through the Central
Water Commission (surface water), Central
Ground Water Board (ground water) and the
National Water Development Agency
(inter-basin transfer of water).
But the MoEF handles water quality and
related environmental aspects; the Ministry
of Urban Affairs and Development coordinates
projects in urban water supply and
sanitation; the Ministry of Rural Areas and
Employment looks after rural water supply
and sanitation under the Rajiv Gandhi
National Drinking Water Mission; and the
Ministry of Power and Central Electric
Authority handles water issues for power
generation.
Similarly, multiple agencies are responsible
for the protection of air quality, including
the Directorate of Industries, the
Department of Transport and Urban
Development and the Traffic Police
authorities in urban areas. Unlike the
independent Environment Protection Authority
envisaged by the Tiwari Committee, the
National Environment Authority, which has
now been setup, seems to be confined to
appellate jurisdiction only.
If the NEA is to be truly effective, its
mandate has to be extended to include
monitoring the policies and programmes
developed by the MoEF and the functioning of
enforcement agencies at the national- and
State-levels. To do this, the NEA needs to
be staffed with an independent scientific
and technical cadre. Further, the Government
would have to make a major departure from
the current mode of functioning of nodal
Ministries responsible for the ecological
and environmental sustainability related to
various developmental Activities.
The regular coordination of all monitoring
Activities could be done by setting up a
National Task Force on Ecology and
Environmental Security, answerable to the
NEA. The Task Force could be mandated to
sort out inter-ministerial and sectoral
differences, fund allocations and programme
implementation. Indeed, the entire
institutional mechanism needs to be
restructured for effective ecological and
environmental governance. This would require
treating the MoEF on the same lines as the
other scientific Ministries and Departments.
The functioning of the MoEF could be
streamlined under two separate Departments
for Environment, and for Forests and
Wildlife. The Department must be headed by
an eminent scientist as Secretary, with the
support of a scientific and technical cadre
and allowing for the lateral entry of
experts in different disciplines from the
universities, scientific agencies and other
professional organisations. The Forest
Department should be independently headed by
the Director-General who should also serve
as its Secretary. The Central Board of
Forestry, which has been dormant since 1988,
should be revived. Every Ministry concerning
natural resource management must have an
‘Ecological and Environmental Adviser’ who
relates to the MoEF as the respective
financial advisers do to the Ministry of
Finance. Also, the National River
Conservation Authority could be merged with
the Department of Environment. To strengthen
the Central and State Pollution Control
Boards, there has to be an in-built
mechanism within the MoEF to continuously
revise standards for air, water and
effluents and review the relevant
legislations. The marine environment and
coastal areas have long been neglected. A
Central Commission needs to be set up to
address the entire range of issues relating
to marine and coastal areas. So too forest
genetic resources and micro-organisms;
separate bureaus for ‘Forest Genetic
Resources’ and ‘Micro-organism Genetic
Resources’ also need to be created for
collection, identification and
characterization on the lines of the
existing National Bureaus of Plant, Animal
and Fish Genetic Resources.
The NEA is only a very small step towards
restructuring the institutional mechanism
for environmental governance. Much more
needs to be done to meet national needs and
the commitments made by India in respect of
various international conventions and
agreements. Unless this is done, such
incremental knee-jerk measures only create
the illusion that environmental governance
is moving forward in the interests of the
people when, in fact, nothing much is being
accomplished.
There is accordingly an urgent need for
having a competent cadre of young
professionals and scientists by acquiring
necessary skills in the areas of ecology and
environment. The Indian Institute of Ecology
and Environment has been engaged since June
1981 in the promotion of environmental
education, depolluting technologies, impact
assessment, natural resources conservation
and management, environmental governance,
advocacy and citizenship.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERALISM : AN INDIAN
VIEW-POINT
The two common types of regulatory
structures of Governments are ‘unitary’ and
‘federal’. As the name suggests, a ‘unitary’
structure is one that consists of a single
level or a single platform from which
governance and regulation flow. It has all
the elements of centralisation. In such a
structure, one would find little or no
autonomy in matters of decision-making in
places away from or at some distance from a
single ‘centre’ of power. In contrast, a
‘federal’ structure is one which is
decentralised, where one will easily observe
a great deal of empowerment and ‘localised’
decision-making authority at a number of
levels in addition to a single centre, and
‘federalism’ refers to an ideology that
propounds such a federal structure. Ulrich
Kloti, a Swiss political scientist, provides
a useful working definition of federalism.
According to him, Federalism is a
territorially differentiated political
organization, where citizens belong to two
(or more) political units at two (or more)
levels, in which each level (i.e. the
federation, the States and the communes) can
decide autonomously on certain policies and
has its own tax base, where the federation
makes sure that the Union does not
disintegrate, and where the lower levels (in
particular, the States or Provinces)
participate in the decision-making at the
superior level. Another crisper definition
of Federalism is provided by David Nice in
his book “Federalism: The Politics of
Intergovernmental Relations”, where he
defines federalism as a “system of
Government that includes a national
Government and at least one level of
sub-national Governments, and that enables
each level to make some significant
decisions independent of the others”. With
this brief background, we now turn to
federalism and environmental regulation. It
is conceivable that like other areas of
governance and regulation, there exists
scope for a degree of federalism in the area
of environmental policy-making, regulation
and management as well. Since the natural
environment, national and international, is
inherently variable with local geography and
with physical distances measured from any
point, it makes sense to postulate or
hypothesize that federalism and the entire
gamut of environmental management,
regulation and preservation will go
together. Let us now examine environmental
federalism in India from constitutional,
institutional, legislative and judicial
perspective and then go on to scrutinize
various elements of the international order
to establish the degree, if any, of the
linkage between federalism, deCentralisation
and the environment.
Environmental Policy and Constitutional
Provisions in India
Powers over environment are assigned to
different tiers of Indian Government. The
division of environmental policy-making and
allocation of environmental functions
amongst the Central, State and local
Governments is regulated by the Indian
Constitution. Let us see how the Indian
constitution governs the relations between
the Central, State and local Governments,
especially with reference to environmental
issues.
Union and State Governments
India, a Union of States, has a federal
system of governance. The power of
governance is shared between the Union
Government and the State Governments. The
Indian Constitution governs the legislative
and administrative relations between the
Union and the States. While the Union
Parliament enjoys the power to legislate for
the whole or any part of the country, the
State legislatures are empowered to make
laws only for their respective States.
However, State legislatures, enjoying
plenary powers, are not delegates of the
Union Parliament. Both, the Union Parliament
and the State legislatures, derive their
powers from the Indian Constitution. The
division of Governmental powers is made with
reference to three lists given in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. List I
or the Union List contains 97 subjects over
which Parliament has exclusive power to
legislate. These include defence, foreign
affairs and environmentally relevant
subjects such as atomic energy and mineral
resources; regulation and development of
interstate rivers and river valleys;
highways; shipping and navigation in
national highways; major ports; airways,
aircraft and air navigation; regulation of
mines and mineral development; development
of oil fields etc. The State legislatures
have exclusive power to legislate with
respect to 66 subjects enumerated in List II
or what is known as the State List.
The environmental subjects over which State
legislatures can legislate are public health
and sanitation; agriculture; communication;
preservation, protection and improvement of
stock and prevention of animal diseases;
water; land; etc. Under List III or
Concurrent List, Parliament and State
legislatures have overlapping, concurrent
and shared jurisdiction over 52 subjects
ranging from forests, protection of wild
animals, and mines and mineral development
to population control and family planning
minor ports, factories and electricity. The
State legislatures have full powers to
legislate with respect to subjects specified
in the Concurrent List. But this power is
subject to an important limitation, namely
that the provisions of the State law should
not conflict with any of the provisions of
the Union law on that subject. This is to
say that if a State law relating to a
concurrent subject is conflicting and
therefore repugnant to a Union law relating
to that very subject, then the Union law
will prevail and the State law shall, to the
extent of such inconsistency and repugnancy,
be void. There is one exception to this
rule. If a State law on a concurrent subject
is inconsistent with a prior Union law on
that same concurrent subject, then the State
law shall prevail in that State and overrule
the Union law in the applicability to that
State only, if the State law has received
presidential assent. Again, there are a few
Articles in the Constitution where the
legislative power is specifically and
exclusively reposed in the Parliament. In
such cases, the distribution of powers based
on the three lists is not applicable. For
example, Article 262 confers exclusive power
on Parliament to enact a law providing for
the adjudication of any dispute or complaint
with respect to the use, distribution or
control of waters of, or in, any inter-state
river or river valley. In exercise of the
power conferred by Article 262, Indian
Parliament enacted The Inter-State Water
Dispute Act, 1956. And the jurisdiction of
all Courts, including the Supreme Court, is
barred with respect to such disputes, which
are to be settled by the Tribunal set up
under The Inter-State Water Dispute Act,
1956. Another important provision in the
Indian Constitution, tilting the balance in
favour of the Union, is Article 248. This
Article confers the residuary power of
legislation on Parliament. It grants
exclusive power to Parliament to make law on
any subject matter not covered by the State
or Concurrent lists. In addition, under
Article 249 of the Constitution, Parliament
is also empowered to legislate in ‘national
interest’ on matters covered by the State
list. And, if there is any inconsistency
between the law made by Parliament under
Article 249 and law made by the State
legislature, the law made by Parliament
shall reign supreme. Further, Parliament can
enact laws on State subjects for those
States whose legislatures have consented to
such Central legislation. Thus, though
‘water’ is a State subject, The Water
[Prevention and Control of Pollution] Act of
1974 was enacted by Parliament, pursuant to
consent resolutions passed by 12 State
legislatures. In order to legislate on
environmental matters, the Indian Parliament
has relied upon yet two other constitutional
provisions. These provisions are Article 253
and Article 51(c). Article 253 empowers
Parliament to make laws for implementing any
treaty, agreement or convention with any
other country/countries or for implementing
any decision made at any international
conference, association or other body.
Article 51(c) mandates that the State shall
endeavor to foster respect for international
law and treaty obligations. These two
Articles, therefore, legitimize the
Parliament to pry open List II and enact
laws on any entries contained in it provided
it is necessary for the purpose of
implementing the treaty obligations of
India. In fact, two major and vital Indian
environmental laws, namely, The Air
[Prevention and Control of Pollution] Act of
1981 and The Environmental [Protection] Act
of 1986, have been enacted under these
Constitutional provisions. The Preambles to
both these laws State that the statutes are
enacted to implement the decisions reached
at the United Nations Conference on Human
Environment held at Stockholm in 1972.
Similarly, The National Environmental
Tribunal Act of 1995, The National
Environment Appellate Authorities Act, 1997
and The Biodiversity Act, 2002 were passed
by the Indian Parliament pursuant to the Rio
Summit of 1992. The United Nations
Conference on Human Environment also gave
rise to the Constitutional (42nd Amendment)
Act, 1976. The Amendment expanded the list
of concurrent subjects by introducing a new
entry ‘Population Control and Family
Planning’, and two entries ‘Forests’ and
‘Protection of Wild Animals and Birds’ were
shifted from the State List to the
Concurrent List. These changes have resulted
in giving more powers to Parliament to
legislate on environmental issues.
Consequently, though the environmental
powers are distributed between the Union and
States, the Union does enjoy a dominant role
in environmental policy making. The
Constitutional (42nd Amendment) Act of 1976
also resulted in inclusion of Article 48A
and Article 51A(g) in the Constitution.
Article 48A casts an obligation on the
Indian State not only to protect but, more
importantly, to improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country. Article 51A(g) imposes a
fundamental duty on the Indian citizen to
protect and improve the natural environment,
including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife, and to have compassion for living
creatures. Therefore, the duty to protect
and enhance the quality of environment in
India is the duty of the Union, States and
the citizens. The Division Bench of the
Supreme Court directed the Central and State
Governments and local authorities to
introduce ‘cleanliness week’ when all
citizens, including members of the
executive, legislature and judiciary, should
render free personal service to keep their
local areas free from pollution.
Local Government
The Indian Constitution focuses mainly on
Centre-State relations. Till 1992, it hardly
talked about local Government, except in
Article 40 in Part IV of the Constitution.
This Article directs that State shall take
steps to organize village panchayats and
endow them with such powers and authority as
may be necessary to enable them to function
as units of self-Government. Local
Government and village administration is a
subject in the State list. Hence, it is the
States which have to set up local
Governments. Consequently, local Governments
are completely under the jurisdiction and
control of their respective State
Governments. They derive their powers,
functions and jurisdiction from their State
Governments and not from the Constitution
itself. This is to say that though Local
Governments enjoy a statutory position and
are an integral part of national Government,
no specific powers have been conferred upon
them by the Constitution. The constitutional
allocation of functions/subjects is between
the Union and the States and not amongst
Union, States and Local Governments. The
Seventh Schedule contains the Union List and
State List but no Local List. In 1992,
Constitutional (73rd and 74th Amendment)
Acts were passed, inserting Parts IX and IX
A in the Constitution. Part IX [Articles
243-243(0)] deals with panchayats17 and Part
IXA [Articles 243(P)-243(Za)] relates to
municipalities. The 73rd and 74th
Constitutional Amendments added XI and XII
Schedules to the Constitution. While XI
Schedule distributes powers between the
State legislature and the panchayat; XII
Schedule distributes powers between the
State legislature and the municipality. Both
Schedules contain environmental subjects.
The panchayat can handle agriculture; land
improvement and soil conservation; minor
irrigation, water management and watershed
development; animal husbandry; fisheries;
social forestry; rural housing; drinking
water; fuel and fodder; electricity and
nonconventional energy sources. The
municipality can undertake town planning;
regulation of land-use and construction of
buildings; roads and bridges; water supply
for domestic, industrial and commercial
purposes; public health, sanitation, solid
waste management; urban forestry, protection
of environment and promotion of ecological
aspects; slum improvement and up-gradation;
provision of urban amenities and facilities
such as parks and gardens; cattle ponds and
prevention of cruelty to animals; and
regulation of slaughter houses and
tanneries. It warrants noting that the XI
and XII Schedules merely list suggested
environmental functions for panchayats and
municipalities. The States are not obliged
to devolve all or some of these listed
functions on the panchayats and
municipalities. However, local Governments
do perform some environmental functions such
as public health and sanitation, garbage
collection and sewage. But there is
considerable variation across Indian States
in the range and nature of environmental
functions discharged by the panchayats and
municipalities. Hence, the Actual role of
local Governments in environmental policy
and management is very weak. Municipal
Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand is the first
landmark Indian decision where a statutory
obligation of a civic body towards
protection of environment was categorically
acknowledged. The Supreme Court compelled
the municipality to either fulfill its
obligation of providing a clean environment
or face consequence of closure. Rejecting
financial inability as a ground for avoiding
statutory obligation, the Court reprimanded:
“a responsible municipal council constituted
for the precise purpose of preserving public
health cannot run away from its principal
duty by pleading financial inability.
Decency and dignity are non-negotiable
facets of human rights and are a first
charge on local self-governing bodies”.
Since then the Indian judiciary has risen to
the occasion. Adorning the mantel of an
ombudsman it has not hesitated in reminding
the local authorities of their
constitutional duty to provide an unpolluted
environment, and on occasions has even
chided them for dereliction of their duties.
In Ganga pollution case, where the pollution
of Ganga was affecting the life, health and
ecology of the entire Indogangetic plain,
the summit court admonished that although
Parliament and State legislatures have
enActed many laws imposing duties on the
Central and State bodies and municipalities
for preventing water pollution, many of
these provisions have just remained on
paper. Directions of this judgement were
sent to all the municipalities of the towns
situated on river Ganga. Hence, despite some
unitary features, the Indian Constitution
does reflect strong federal characters in
matters relating to environment. ..