The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the state and citizens to protect and improve the natural environment, including air, water, and soil, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and supported by principles of intergenerational equity, precautionary principle, and polluter pays principle.

Harbans Lal, J.-These writ petitions, which have been filed by way of public interest litigation, highlight issues of grave environmental and ecological degradation due to large SCALE illegal, un-authorised, un-scientific and un-systematic mining activities being undertaken in violation of the provisions of various enactments, rules framed and notifications issued thereunder, and the orders of the Supreme Court and this Court. Some of the petitioners have made a grievance with regard to the operation of the stone crushers and use of explosive substances for winning the minerals from the mines on the ground that they are causing AIR and nose pollution. Since these writ petitions pertain to and address the common issues, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544/03 has been filed by one Ashwani Chobisa, who is a practicing lawyer, in the Rajasthan High Court and claims himself to be a public spirited and keenly interested person in protecting the environment and water resources. He has focused on the aspects of large SCALE illegal un-systematic, haphazard and un-scientific mining taking place in the entire State of Rajasthan and operation of stone crushers at various places in the State and their benefit repercussions on the ecology. While Chobisa’s writ petition deals with the problem of environmental degradation through-out the State of Rajasthan, all other writ petitions have focused on the aforesaid problem in respect of particular areas only. Therefore, Chobisa’s writ petition is treated as the lead case.

PETITIONER’S CASE:

3. According to the petitioner (Ashwini Chobisa), the State and its functionaries have been complacent in not strictly enforcing environmental laws and notifications. He has referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to an individual. Article 48-A enjoins the State to make every endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wild life of the country. Article 51-A(g) provides that it shall be the duty of the every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Articles 48A and 51A have been inserted in the Constitution through constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. Prior to insertion of these provisions in the Constitution, there have been several legislations on the subject

including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, The AIR (Protection and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The constitutional and statutory provisions, inter alia are aimed at protecting the individual’s rights to fresh AIR, clean water and pollution free environment.

In A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Professor M.V. Nayadu & Ors., (1), while dealing with the principle of inter generational equity, which is of recent origin, has highlighted the Stockhom Declaration, 192 which declares that environment is a resource for survival of present and future generations.

Even the Supreme Court has accepted “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (2). It has been laid down that:

a) the environmental measures by the State Government and statutory authorities should anticipate, prevent and check the cause of environmental degradation,

b) where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty, the reasons used for postponing the measure to prevent environmental degradation and

c) the onus to prove is on the actor or on the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. For protection of environment the notifications dated 27.1.1994 and .5.1992 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Rules framed thereunder are being violated by the pe