The judiciary developed a service-oriented approach combined with long-term goals of “earth stewardship” for providing the opportunities for those conscientious citizens, public and private intellectuals, institutions, CBOs, and NGOs – who had larger interests at the core of their grievances against the actions and plans of the Central and State Governments. This recently developed format of seeking justice on behalf for those weaker entities is popularly referred to as the “Public Interest Litigation” (PIL) to deal effectively and in a time bound manner with cases that are of national importance and affecting the very core of human rights, dignity, and liberty.
Over the period of time, the Court has evolved the concept of PIL too. Many new dimensions were added to extend the jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the PILs. Many significant and proactive steps were taken by the Courts to absorb new ideas to keep up with the changing social and cultural positions in the country. Many inclusions and exclusions were made to the Constitution by way of PILs. For example, PILs were entertained and decided upon to include under the ambit of Article 21, rights that were left open to interpretation of the Court.
With the growing urbanisation, industrialisation, development, etc, the problems of polluting the environment have increased manifold. Development at the cost of environment and adversely affecting those who are dependent on the environment, importantly the animals and the citizens, was strictly dealt by the Courts in form of PILs.
It is hypothesized in this study that the possibility of PIL has empowered the common man and environmental activists to challenge the State and seek corrective intervention. However, more effective corrections in environmental governance could become possible when the environmental policies and laws are inspired by the so-called systemic thinking of environment and ecology.
