Fundamental Principles of Doctrines of Environmental Protection | Environmental Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Sustainable Development (SD)

• Sustainable development refers to development that is socially, economically, and environmentally balanced and has a long-lasting impact.
• The term was popularized in the Brundtland Report of 1987, which defined it as meeting present needs without compromising future generations.
• Four legal elementsof sustainable development include:
  • Preserving natural resources for future generations.
  • Sustainable and prudent resource exploitation.
  • Equitable resource use.
  • Integrating environmental considerations into economic and developmental plans.
• Three new principles added to sustainable development include:
  • Obligation to assist and cooperate.
  • Eradication of poverty.
  • Financial assistance to developing countries.

Objectives of Sustainable Development

• Economic Development: Sustainable development must ensure the continuous production of goods and services while maintaining manageable levels of government and avoiding imbalances that could harm agriculture and industry.
• Environmental Protection: It is crucial to maintain a stable resource base by avoiding over-exploitation of renewable resources and depleting them only when substitutes are available.
• Social Welfare: Sustainable development should achieve distributional equality, adequate social services (including health and education), gender equality, and public participation.

Brundtland Report

• The term sustainable development was first introduced by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987.
• In its report,"Our Common Future," commonly known as the Brundtland Report, sustainable development was defined as meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Stockholm Declaration

• The 1972 Stockholm Declaration, though not explicitly mentioning sustainable development, implied the need to integrate economic development with environmental protection under Principle 13.

Rio Declaration

• The Rio Declaration emphasized that environmental protection is an integral part of the development process and should not be considered in isolation.

Legal Elements of Sustainable Development

Four legal elements of sustainable development as reflected in international instruments include:

• Preserving natural resources for future generations (Principle of Intergenerational Equity).
• Sustainable and prudent exploitation of natural resources (Principle of Sustainable Use).
• Equitable use of resources(Principle of Sustainable Use).
• Integrating environmental considerations into economic and developmental plans (Principle of Integration).

New Principles of Sustainable Development

• The new principles of sustainable development include:
  • Obligation to assist and cooperate.
  • Eradication of poverty.
  • Financial assistance to developing countries.
• These principles aim to create a balance between environment and development.

Precautionary Principle

• The Precautionary Principle first appeared in international legal documents in the mid-1980s. Its purpose is to guide the development and application of environmental law in situations where there is scientific uncertainty. 
• This principle is a fundamental aspect of sustainable development, which asserts that development should be halted and prevented if it leads to serious and irreversible environmental harm.

Understanding the Precautionary Principle

• For instance, when the impacts of a specific activity, such as the emission of hazardous substances, are unclear, the typical approach is to allow the activity to continue until the uncertainty is fully resolved. 
• The Precautionary Principle challenges this norm. When there is uncertainty about the effects of an activity, the Principle advocates for taking proactive measures to prevent and mitigate potential environmental damage. In such cases, the Precautionary Principle supports monitoring, preventing, or mitigating uncertain potential threats.

Key Elements of the Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle signifies a shift in decision-making and encompasses five key elements aimed at preventing irreversible harm to people and the environment:

• Anticipatory Actions: The obligation to take preventive measures against potential harm.
• Right to Know: The community's right to access complete and accurate information regarding possible impacts on human health and the environment.
• Alternatives Assessments: Evaluating a range of alternatives and selecting the option with the least potential impact on human health and the environment.
• Full Cost Accounting: Conducting cost-benefit analyses to consider all costs associated with an action.
• Participatory Decision Process: Ensuring transparency and public participation in decisions made under this principle.
• This principle assumes that scientific knowledge can equip policymakers with the necessary information and tools to avoid exceeding the environment's capacity to absorb impacts. It also presumes the availability of relevant technical expertise when predicting environmental harm and the presence of adequate time to take preventive actions.
• The emergence of the Precautionary Principle is rooted in the lack of complete information about the far-reaching consequences and severe, irreversible damage that may result from certain actions, as indicated by scientific studies. This gap in scientific knowledge is referred to as the 'inadequacies of science.'
• Therefore, the Precautionary Principle advocates for taking protective measures even in the absence of full scientific evidence of risks, emphasizing that actions should not be delayed solely due to incomplete scientific information.

When to Apply Precautionary Measures

Precautionary steps should be taken in the following situations:

• When there are threats of serious or irreversible damage.
• When there are significant risks of damage.
• When there is reason to believe that damage is likely to occur.
• When there is no conclusive evidence of harmlessness.

The Precautionary Principle was first introduced in a Declaration adopted by an International Conference on the North Sea in 1987 and has since been included in nearly all international instruments related to environmental protection established since the 1990s.

• Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration in 1992 states that “In order to protect the environment, the Precautionary principle shall be widely applicable by the States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
• The Indian Supreme Court has also embraced this principle, and efforts are underway to incorporate it into various environmental legislations in India.

Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)

The Polluter Pays Principle(PPP) is a key concept in environmental law that holds the party responsible for producing pollution accountable for the costs of the damage caused to the natural environment. This principle ensures that those who pollute bear the financial burden of measures taken to control and mitigate pollution.

According to the PPP, the polluter is required to cover the expenses associated with pollution control measures, which may include:

• Investment in anti-pollution installations.
• Operational costs of these installations.
• Implementation of new processes to achieve necessary environmental quality objectives.

The primary goal of the Polluter Pays Principle is to ensure that the polluter bears the costs of measures determined by public authorities to maintain the environment in an acceptable state. While the principle was not explicitly featured in the Stockholm Conference, it was first referenced in an international document by the 1972 OECD Council Recommendations on guiding principles concerning the international economic aspects of environmental policies. 

• Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration emphasizes that national authorities should promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, ensuring that the polluter bears the cost of pollution while considering public interest and avoiding distortions in international trade and investment. 
• By encouraging the internalization of environmental costs, the Polluter Pays Principle aims to prevent the wastage of natural resources and eliminate the cost-free use of the environment. 
• It is considered an effective means of allocating pollution costs and promoting rational use of scarce natural resources through prevention and control measures introduced by public authorities.

Inter-Generational Equity (IGE)

• Inter-Generational Equity (IGE) is a recent concept in international environmental law that emphasizes the shared responsibility of present and future generations in preserving the natural and cultural environment of the Earth.
• It reflects the idea that we inherit the Earth from our ancestors and have an obligation to pass it on in reasonable condition to future generations.

Principles of Inter-Generational Equity

• Conservation of Options: Involves not only conserving resources directly but also developing new technologies that create substitutes for existing resources.
• Conservation of Quality: Each generation must maintain the planet's quality, ensuring it is passed on in no worse condition than received from previous generations.
• Conservation of Access: Each generation should provide its members with equitable rights of access to the legacy of previous generations and conserve this access for future generations.

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

• Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is a study that examines the potential adverse consequences of planned projects on the environment.
• EIA serves two main functions: it influences decisions on project implementation and encourages public participation in decision-making processes.
• EIA can be mandatory, making it compulsory for environmental agencies to submit assessments before project initiation, or discretionary, where it is not mandatory and depends on administrative authority.
• Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration emphasizes the importance of EIA for proposed activities likely to have significant environmental impacts.
• The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines EIA as a process of identifying, predicting, evaluating, and mitigating the effects of development proposals before major decisions are made.
• EIA aims to ensure sustainable development by evaluating significant environmental impacts of major activities.
• EIA is anticipatory, participatory, and systematic in nature, promoting informed decision-making and public involvement.

Public Trust Doctrine (PTD)

• The Public Trust Doctrine is based on the idea that certain essential resources like air, sea, water, and forests are so crucial to people that they should not be privately owned. These resources are considered gifts of nature and should be available to everyone, regardless of their social status.
• The doctrine requires states to protect these resources for the enjoyment of the general public, rather than allowing them to be used for private or commercial purposes.

Restrictions on Governmental Authority

• The property must be available for use by the general public, not just for public purposes.
• The property cannot be sold, even for a fair price.
• The property must be maintained for specific types of uses only.

Historical Background

• In ancient Roman law, natural resources like the sea, seashores, air, and running water were considered common to everyone and could not be privately owned (res nullius) or were open to all (res communis). This concept is the basis of the Public Trust Doctrine.
• The principle was also present in English law, where the sovereign held these resources in trust for the public.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

• In this significant case, the Supreme Court examined the balance between environmental protection and development.
• The petitioner, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, addressing the severe pollution of the Palar River in Tamil Nadu caused by untreated effluent discharge from tanneries and other industries. The river's water is crucial for drinking and bathing for the local population.
• Research by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre in Vellore indicated that approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land had become unfit for cultivation.
• The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the operation of tanneries should continue at the expense of public health and safety.
• The Court acknowledged the economic importance of tanneries in India, noting their role in foreign exchange earnings and employment. However, it also recognized the environmental damage and health risks they posed.
• In its judgment, the Court sided with the petitioners, imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000 on all tanneries and directing the State of Tamil Nadu to reward Mr. M. C. Mehta Rs. 50,000 for his environmental protection efforts.
• The Court also advocated for the establishment of Green Benches in India to expedite environmental protection cases.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga River Pollution Case)

• In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the severe pollution of the Ganga River near Kanpur due to untreated effluents from tanneries and inadequate sanitation facilities.
• The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, sought a ban on the discharge of trade effluents into the river by tanneries.
• The Court emphasized that the financial capacity of the tanneries was irrelevant when it came to establishing necessary treatment facilities.
• It ordered tanneries without treatment plants to cease operations until they complied with treatment requirements.
• The Kanpur Mahanagarpalika was held liable for pollution, and the Court issued various directives to improve sanitation and prevent pollution in the Ganga River.

Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayadu

• The case involved the establishment of an industry, with the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) rejecting the application due to pollution concerns.
• The Supreme Court upheld the APPCB's decision, emphasizing the importance of the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle in environmental jurisprudence.
• The Court highlighted the challenges of scientific uncertainty in environmental policy-making.

S Jagannath v. Union of India

• The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the enforcement of the CRZ Notification, 1991, to prohibit intensive and semi-intensive prawn farming in ecologically sensitive coastal areas. The petitioner also calls for the establishment of a National Coastal Management Authority to protect marine life and coastal ecosystems.
• The court noted that commercial aquaculture farming has led to significant degradation of mangrove ecosystems, pollution of drinking water sources, and a decline in fish catch. Groundwater contamination has occurred due to the seepage of water from aquaculture farms. Additionally, much of the coastal land converted into shrimp farms was previously used for food crops and traditional fishing.
• The expansion of modern shrimp ponds has restricted local fishermen's access to the beach, forcing them to trespass through shrimp farms or take longer routes.
• The court emphasized that sea coasts and beaches are natural gifts to humanity and must be preserved for their aesthetic and recreational value. Any activity that degrades the environment is not permissible.
• The effluents discharged by commercial shrimp farms were found to exceed prescribed standards and fall under the definitions of environmental pollutant, environmental pollution, and hazardous substances. The court noted that no action had been taken by authorities under various environmental laws such as the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, the Water Act, 1974, and others.
• The court issued several orders, including:
• Prohibiting the conversion of agricultural land and salt farms into aquaculture farms.
• Constitution of an authority under the Central Government to implement the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle.
• Prohibiting the construction of shrimp culture ponds in coastal areas.
• Requiring existing aquaculture industries near Chilika Lake to compensate affected individuals.
• Mandating prior permission and clearance for aquaculture operations outside the CRZ.

Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railways Corporation

• The people in the regions of Maharashtra,Goa, and Karnataka have long demanded a railway line to enhance economic conditions and access to hinterlands. The Central Government had been considering this for a long time, but the project faced delays due to funding issues.
• Eventually, the Central Government decided to proceed with the railway line, leading to the establishment of the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., a public limited company.
• The petitioner, aiming to protect and improve the natural environment, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, requesting the Corporation to obtain environmental clearance for the railway alignment through Goa from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The petition sought to halt all work on the railway line until such clearance was secured.
• The petitioners argued that the proposed alignment was planned without a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (E.I.A.) and would cause significant harm to the environment and ecosystem, violating citizens' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. They believed that while immediate ecological damage might not be evident, it would gradually lead to land degradation affecting many people.
• The court recognized the need to balance public utility with environmental concerns. It acknowledged that no development is without some negative impact on the ecology and environment, but projects of public utility should not be abandoned. The court emphasized the importance of striking a balance between the interests of the people and environmental preservation, leaving such decisions to experts in the field.
• As a result, the petition was dismissed.

Narula Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India

• The petitioners, who are industrial units, challenged the actions of the State Government under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The State Government had directed the units to halt production activities and ensure that the wastewater being discharged conformed to the standards set by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. Additionally, the units were not allowed to resume production without the permission of the State Government and the Forest and Environment Department.
• The State Government and other respondents argued that the industrial units did not have an operational effluent treatment plant and had violated the terms of the consent letters issued by the State Board under Section 25(2) of the Water Act.
• Section 25 of the Water Act imposes restrictions on new outlets and discharges. It states that no person shall establish an industry or process likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent without the prior consent of the State Board. The State Board may grant consent subject to conditions related to the nature, composition, temperature, volume, or rate of discharge of the effluent.
• The court concurred with the respondents' arguments and upheld the State Board's authority to impose conditions on the industry under Section 25 of the Water Act, 1974 to prevent water pollution.
• Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were instructed to comply with the directives of the State Government.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India

• Five factories in Bicchari village, Udaipur, were producing Hyaluronic Acid (H-acid) and discharging highly toxic untreated effluents, including iron and gypsum-based sludge. This led to severe damage to underground soil, water, and the environment. Water from around 60 wells over 350 hectares turned red and became unfit for consumption, while the entire land became infertile.
• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered these factories to show cause for their operation under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court to address the issue.
• The court applied the Principle of Absolute Liability and referenced cases like Rylands versus Fletcher, the Oleum Gas Leakage case, and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. It ordered the closure of the factories and directed them to pay up to Rs. 4 Crores for ecological restoration. The court also recommended the establishment of Green Benches in all State High Courts.

Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra

• The Bombay Environmental Action Group filed a writ petition challenging the permissions granted by the Central and State Governments for the construction of a 500MW Thermal Power Station in District Thane, arguing it violated environmental norms.
• The petitioners contended that the project would harm the local ecology and adversely affect nearby aquatic life. In response, the defendants claimed there would be no environmental loss as the land was almost infertile, without vegetation to be felled, and devoid of nearby habitation.
• The court examined the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986(EPA) and the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification. It found the environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) contrary to environmental standards.
• Despite this, the petition was not upheld as the need for electricity in India outweighed environmental concerns. The court emphasized the importance of balancing environmental issues with the needs of the community and the country’s development.

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Case / Oleum Gas Leakage Case]

• This case, often referred to as the oleum gas leakage case, established the rule of Absolute Liability, which is more stringent than Strict Liability.
• Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., was located in a densely populated area of Delhi.
• On December 4, 1985, there was a leakage of oleum gas from the Sulphuric acid plant, resulting in the death of an advocate and injuries to several others. A minor leakage occurred again on December 6, 1985. In response to a complaint under Sec 133 Cr.P.C., the District Magistrate ordered the closure of the unit and required the management to provide reasons in writing within seven days.
• Petitioner Mr. M. C. Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. He urged the court to direct the government to take necessary steps to prevent such leakages from industries engaged in dangerous and hazardous manufacturing processes. He also referenced the recent Bhopal Gas Tragedy and requested the relocation of such industries away from the city.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether the plant should be allowed to continue operations.
• If not, what measures are required to prevent leakages, explosions, and pollution?
• Whether safety devices are present in the plant.
• The Supreme Court, after extensive deliberation, decided to allow Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry to resume operations. The court acknowledged the essentiality of such industries for the country's economic and social progress, despite their inherent dangers.
• The court ordered the management to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs as security for compensation to the victims. It also mandated compliance with all recommendations from expert committees and the installation of safety equipment.
• Additionally, the court directed the establishment of a green belt 1-5 kms in width around such industries.
• The court commended petitioner Mr. M.C. Mehta for his numerous PILs and ordered Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers to pay Rs. 10,000 towards costs.
• Furthermore, the court directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court.

M. C. Mehta v. Union Carbide Commission

• In December 1984, a leakage of the poisonous gas Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) occurred at the Union Carbide Corporation India Limited in Bhopal, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). This incident is recorded as the world’s worst industrial disaster, claiming the lives of 2,260 people and causing serious injuries to approximately 600,000 individuals.
• The Government of India, on behalf of the victims, filed a suit against UCC in the U.S. District Court, New York. However, the court dismissed all suits, petitions, and representations on the ground of forum non-conveniens, suggesting that the cases would be more conveniently tried in India.
• The Indian government, through M.C. Mehta, filed a suit against UCC in the District Court of Bhopal, seeking 3.3 billion U.S. dollars (approximately Rs. 3900 crores) as compensation for the victims. The District Court ordered UCC to pay an interim relief of 270 million U.S. dollars (approximately Rs. 350 crores) to the victims.
• UCC, aggrieved by this decision, filed a civil revision petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which reduced the amount from Rs. 350 crores to Rs. 250 crores.
• Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court on different issues. The case involved several municipal and international considerations, such as:
  Parent Company Liability: Whether the parent company is liable for the actions of its subsidiary abroad. UCC argued that it was only morally, not legally, responsible.
  Home State Responsibility: Whether the U.S. could be held accountable for the hazardous activities of UCC’s subsidiary in India.
  Host State Responsibility: The extent of India’s responsibility for enforcing safety standards and liability to victims for rehabilitation in case of accidents.
• While the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, another incident occurred at the Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry in New Delhi. From this incident, the Supreme Court evolved the principle of Absolute Liability, building on the 1868 principle.
• Considering this development, the Supreme Court directed UCC to pay 470 million U.S. dollars (approximately Rs. 750 crores) as compensation to the victims, settling all past, present, and future claims. This settlement was accepted by both parties.
• The Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, quashed all civil and criminal proceedings against UCC.

Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal

• In Alipore, there was a zoological garden on the outskirts of Calcutta, which eventually became the heart of the city due to its expansion.
• In May 1980, the Taj Group of Hotels proposed to build a five-star hotel in the area, suggesting that four acres could be taken from the zoo for this purpose.
• The zoo's managing committee initially raised objections to the hotel blueprint, but these were later withdrawn after a compromise was reached. The compromise involved constructing a garden hotel instead of a 60-storey hotel.
• Subsequently, five petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to prevent the zoo authorities from allocating land to the hotel group. The Single Bench High Court judge dismissed the petition, and the Division Bench of the same High Court confirmed this decision.
• As a result, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136.
• The petitioners argued that the Principles of Natural Justice were not observed, and those concerned about the zoo's welfare were not heard before the decision was made.
• However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the Taj Group had taken all necessary precautions.
• The Apex Court emphasized that in cases involving ecology, the court should not defer to policy-making authorities.
• At the same time, the court acknowledged the Taj Group's fair approach, as they had assured the preservation of the zoo and its animals. They agreed to build a garden hotel, considering the area's ecology and the protection of migratory birds.
• Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and construction was permitted.

Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India

• The petitioners filed a PIL to enforce notifications under the WPA, 1972,EPA, 1986, and various Forest Laws in areas declared as Reserved Forests in Alwar District, Rajasthan. This area is now known as Sariska Tiger Park, which has been designated as a Game Reserve, Sanctuary, National Park, Reserved Forest, and Protected Area.
• The petitioners argued that any mining activity in this area would violate the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, as it is impermissible under the law.
• The Government of Rajasthan illegally issued around 400 mining licenses, allowing mining operations that the petitioners believe will harm the ecology of the area.
• The Court, after examining various laws and facts, emphasized the importance of preserving ecology and resources, stating that "every resource that has increased human power has been used to diminish the prospects of successors."
• The Court directed the Central Government to take action under Sec 3 of the EPA, 1986, by appointing a Committee to ensure compliance with the laws and prevent environmental and wildlife damage in the protected area. The committee is tasked with assessing environmental and wildlife damage and making recommendations for remedial measures.
• Additionally, the Court declared that no mining activities can be conducted in the specified area.

Pradeep Krishnen v. Union of India

• The petitioner filed a PIL under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of an order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) allowing villagers around the boundaries of sanctuaries and National Parks to collect Tendu leaves from these protected areas.
• The petitioner argued that this practice violated the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972, and fundamental rights and duties.
• He contended that illegal felling of trees and excessive grazing had led to a loss of vegetation cover.
• The petitioner also pointed out that M.P. had previously imposed a ban in 1992, but this ban was lifted due to business pressures.
• By lifting the ban, the State ignored the Flora and Fauna of the area, and the presence of humans posed a significant threat to the environment and wildlife.
• The court emphasized the importance of Article 48A and Article 51A (g).
• It held that for any rights of the tribal people over forest land in sanctuaries and national parks to be established, proper procedures under the WPA, 1972 must be followed.
• Until such procedures are completed, the State government cannot bar entry of villagers or tribals into the forest, unless their presence is likely to cause harm to the environment.

Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v. Union of India

• There are two sets of writ petitions in this case. The first was with regard to the challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the WPA, 1972 as amended in 1991 and the second was the challenge to the same thing except that the petitioners contended that they deal with ivory derived from the mammoth, an extinct species of the wild animals, not covered by the WPA, 1972.
• The provisions of WPA, 1972 as amended in 1991 put a ban on all dealings of ivory and which was contended by the petitioners as unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary and violative of their Freedom of Trade as provided under Art. 19 (1) (g).
• The petitioners further contended that even though the1991 Amendment Actextinguishes their title over the imported ivory which was lawfully acquired by them- they should be at least allowed to sell their stocks of ivory and the products made therefrom and the Government should buy the same.
• They also contended that the Parliament is not competent to legislate on the matter of remains of ivory coming from an extinct mammoth and the WPA, 1972 specifically does not deal with this kind of ivory at all.
• On the other hand, the respondents argued that the WPA, 1972 has been enacted to provide protection and conservation to the wild life and further that the trade in wild life or any part thereto is antithetic to conservation. They further contended that these restrictions were reasonable and necessary in Public Interest and were meant to give efforts to the DPSP’s. further, after the Amendment Act coming into force from 1991 till July 1992, the petitioners have enough time to liquidate their stocks but they did not do so.
• The Court observed that the Principal Act of 1972 and the Amendment Acts of 1982, 1986, 1991 case to the conclusion that the population of elephant has gone down and it has now become endangered species.
• The Parliament judged the situation has rightfully prohibited trade in ivory articles by fulfilling its constitutional obligation u/A 48A and international obligation under CITES, 1973.
• The court declared that trade and businesses at the costs of disrupting life forms cannot be permitted even once.
• Further, the reiterated that rights under Art 19 (1) (g) are not absolute rights and restrictions can be imposed on them in Public interest.
• The Court realized that 50 years ago, the urgency to preserve the elephant may not have been the upper most priority of human beings as at that point of time it was not at the verge of extinction as it is now and therefore, the Court held that the State was totally justified in imposing restrictions on killing of elephants.
• The court declared that:
  No citizen has the Fundamental Right to trade in ivory and ivory articles
  The prohibition is in the public interest
  The ban is not violative of Art.14 and does not suffer from any unreasonableness, unfairness and arbitrariness