Case Comment on M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213
Author: Balaji M, Student, School of Law, CHRIST University, Bangalore, India
We live in a world, where developmental needs and economic sustainability surpasses environmental sustainability. Development, to a great extent, not only ignores the lives of the current generation but also the future generation. It is a complete negation of the Inter-generational equity principle enshrined in the concept of sustainable development. Under these circumstances, State, as the trustee, should have taken measures to protect and to overcome the degradation of environmental resources by industrialists and pro-developmental endorsers. Instead, it endorses the industrial developments through its pro-industrial and anti-environmental policies and its implementations. It has been noted that, by every economist, any government of a nation that promotes the privatization and globalization policies could act as a mediator between the people and businessmen and not as sovereign authority possessing the value of trustee. With this background, it is really important, only in this situation, to foresee for progressive and eco-friendly society. As part of this progressive society, there requires a policy that ensures that people and resources are more important than industrial developments across the country. One of such importance was given in the case of M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath in the year 2000, which established principles that should have been followed as a preface for any environmental policies in the upcoming century. But, in reality, there has been a complete shift in its implementation. Jurisprudential analysis of this case would, therefore, direct the state to look upon the importance of natural resources. This paper would analyze the importance of these natural resources through the concept of legal jurisprudence.
Keywords: Environment Protection, Constitution, Polluter Pay Principle.
Download Full Paper