The National Green Tribunal issues directives to the Himachal Pradesh government to tackle environmental degradation caused by tourism in the Rohtang Pass region. Mandates include pollution control, transportation restrictions and reforestation initiatives.
In 2013, India’s National Green Tribunal (NGT) initiated its own motion to address deforestation and tourism’s adverse impacts on the Rohtang Pass, a critical region in Himachal Pradesh . Overconstruction, increased traffic, unregulated tourism and the associated air pollution and black carbon impacted snowfall in the region and disrupted animal behavior. Recognizing the ripple effects of ecosystem degradation, the NGT emphasized that environmental protection is critical for averting environmental harms that negatively impact humans.
The Indian Constitution is interpreted as granting —though it does not explicitly provide— citizens the right to a healthy, clean and respectable environment (R2HE), which obligates the State and citizens to advance its realization. Consequently, the State must safeguard the country’s forests and environment in the public’s best interest. This obligation adheres to the doctrine of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, balancing necessary development against environmental consequences.
In this notable case, the new NGT directed the Himachal Pradesh government to curtail pollution, limit transportation, shift to cleaner fuels, institute reforestation initiatives and establish a Monitoring Committee accountable for reporting on progress. This order reflects a proactive approach to harmonizing developmental needs with environmental preservation.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established in 2010, functions as a specialized court dedicated to environmental protection, forest conservation and swift resolution of cases, aiming to alleviate litigation burdens. Distinct from conventional courts, the NGT adheres to principles of natural justice and is not bound by civil procedure codes. It can adjudicate cases, initiate proceedings, provide remedies and establish monitoring bodies.
In 2013, the NGT took action against the Himachal Pradesh government concerning unregulated tourism and its adverse environmental impact, infringing upon citizens’ constitutionally protected right to life. Over the preceding years, tourism had surged in sensitive Himalayan regions of the State, leading to heightened local pollution in terms of waste and air quality. Studies revealed a decline in snow cover, disturbances to wildlife habitats and behaviors, diminished stream cleanliness, increased soil erosion and snow discoloration. The tourist infrastructure had exceeded ecological limits, with an estimated 40% of glacial retreat attributed to vehicular emissions in Himachal Pradesh. The environmental degradation and glacial shrinkage had broader implications, impacting other vulnerable ecological zones and causing substantial economic repercussions due to declining ecosystem services. The consequences of environmental degradation pose threats to both human health and economic stability.
The NGT underscored the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of both the state and citizens as outlined in the Indian Constitution. It emphasized the constitutional history of environmental protection and the state’s duty to safeguard fundamental rights, including the right to a clean and dignified environment (R2HE). These rights encompass socio-economic justice, health, religious freedom, and security. However, developmental needs must align with sustainable practices and consider potential adverse environmental impacts.
The NGT underscored the rights, responsibilities and obligations of the State and citizens outlined in the Indian Constitution. It emphasized the constitutional history of environmental protection and the State’s duty to safeguard fundamental rights, including the right to a clean and dignified environment (R2HE). These rights encompass socioeconomic justice, health, religious freedom and security. However, developmental needs must align with sustainable practices and consider potential adverse environmental impacts.
The NGT found the State and government of Himachal Pradesh culpable for failing to uphold citizens’ constitutional rights to socioeconomic security and a healthy environment. Its directives mandated implementing pollution reduction programs and transportation limitations, adopting cleaner vehicle fuels in ecologically sensitive zones and initiating a reforestation initiative. The Court established a Monitoring Committee to provide quarterly reports to the NGT to ensure compliance. These reports would detail non-compliance with the Court’s directives and suggest measures for their realization.
The NGT heavily relied on the robust protections outlined in the Indian Constitution and the substantial history of domestic jurisprudence on rights and environmental matters, particularly evident in the precedents set by the Supreme Court before the NGT’s establishment. The Constitution explicitly safeguards various fundamental rights and imposes governmental obligations, including the right to life in Article 21, religious freedom in Article 25 and the duty of both the State and citizens to preserve the environment in Article 48(a).
Building upon Article 21, the Court elaborated on how Indian courts consistently broadened the scope of the right to life to encompass R2HE, effectively establishing a “guaranteed fundamental right” to a clean environment for current and future generations. Nonetheless, the NGT acknowledged that fundamental freedoms are not absolute and are subject to restrictions, requiring a delicate balance with other prevailing interests and rights. Balancing necessary development initiatives and access to temples in environmentally sensitive regions must weigh against the right to life and R2HE. Imposing limitations on certain rights to counterbalance fundamental interests must serve the general public, be reasonable and fall within the actor’s legislative jurisdiction.
The NGT concluded that the Centre, State and Shrine Board must weigh their obligation to protect and fulfill the R2HE against foundational socioeconomic rights. Applying the principles of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, the Court assessed whether these parties achieved that equilibrium. In this instance, the State and other involved entities had failed to strike the necessary balance and fulfill their constitutional duty.
Leveraging the Indian courts’ vested powers concerning individuals’ fundamental rights —Constitutional Articles 32 and 226— the NGT exercised its authority to impose penalties and remediate the environment by directing these parties to undertake specific actions.
While India follows a dualist approach to international law, the courts often draw heavily upon and reference international legal principles, especially those concerning fundamental human rights and state responsibilities. The NGT — interpreting Articles 21 and 48A of the Constitution— looked to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for guidance. Previous Indian judicial decisions had referenced UDHR Article 1, emphasizing states’ duty to safeguard the dignity and rights of individuals. Additionally, UDHR Article 25(2) upholds the right to adequate living standards for health, well-being and security.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution —affirming the right to life— encompasses the full spectrum of human personality, including socio-economic justice and dignity. By referencing the UDHR, the NGT acknowledged that “life” cannot be restricted to “mere animal existence” but includes the right to an improved standard of living and conditions, including R2HE. This reasoning expanded the narrower understanding of the right to life in the UDHR and informed the NGT’s interpretation regarding the comprehensive nature of the right to life.
The Indian Constitution stands out for imposing a unique duty on the State and its citizens to conduct due diligence to safeguard the environment —Article 48A— while also mandating the protection and realization of all other fundamental rights outlined in its Articles. Under the Indian judiciary’s interpretation of the right to life, the State bears a greater responsibility to safeguard and enhance the environment that is essential for fostering a life with dignity and “worth living.” Any limitations placed on this right —even in favor of other fundamental rights— must align with the public’s interest or serve the protection of Scheduled Tribes in addition to being reasonable and falling within the State’s legislative jurisdiction.
By inadequately weighing the public’s interest in the right to life, security and R2HE against economic and religious interests, the State failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation. The NGT determined that the State bore a “greater obligation” to preserve the environment. The Constitution mandates the State to act in the public’s best interest, protect life and—under Article 48A— conserve India’s forests and environment. While development may be necessary, it cannot come at the expense of the environment. The area’s environmental degradation and uncontrolled tourism underscored the State’s failure to fulfill its duty.
The case showcases the proactive approach of the Indian judiciary in addressing environmental and human rights concerns within the country. Anchored in a Constitution that mirrors principles from the UDHR, the judiciary had expanded the right to life to implicitly include R2HE, long before the NGT’s establishment. This recognition, coupled with the State’s and its citizens’ shared responsibility to protect the environment under Article 48A, established a robust presumption against State actions causing environmental harm.
The case highlighted an example of State actions leading to environmental degradation, which compelled the NGT to exercise its significant authority.
