In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court applied the "Precautionary Principle" to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 4:
The correct option is **4: M. C. Mehta V. Union of State, 1997** (specifically, the case is widely known as *Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India*, which is often grouped under the extensive series of public interest litigations filed by M. C. Mehta, and in this context, the option refers to a landmark environmental judgment from 1997). In this critical judgment, the Supreme Court of India officially incorporated the internationally recognized **Precautionary Principle** and the **Polluter Pays Principle** into the framework of Indian environmental jurisprudence. The court affirmed that these principles are essential features of Sustainable Development and must be read into Articles 21 (Right to Life) and 48A (Protection and Improvement of Environment) of the Constitution. The Precautionary Principle mandates that regulatory measures should be taken to prevent environmental damage even when there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. By applying this principle, the Supreme Court shifted the burden of proof onto the industrial developers to demonstrate that their activity is harmless, thus promoting proactive prevention over post-damage remediation. The 1997 judgment specifically dealt with the severe environmental degradation caused by pollution from tanneries in Tamil Nadu, establishing a robust legal mechanism to anticipate and prevent such causes of degradation.

The incorrect option is 1:
**D. K. Basu V. State of West Bengal, 1997** is an extremely important case, but it pertains entirely to the realm of criminal justice and human rights, not environmental law. This landmark judgment laid down comprehensive guidelines and mandatory procedures that police and other agencies must follow during arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and protect the fundamental rights of the arrested person under Articles 21 and 22. While it significantly strengthened human rights, its focus was on procedural safeguards against state abuse of power, making it unrelated to environmental degradation or the Precautionary Principle. Students must associate this case primarily with issues like custodial death and guidelines for arrest.

The incorrect option is 2:
**Menaka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978** is a watershed moment in Indian Constitutional Law, profoundly expanding the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The ruling established that the procedure for depriving a person of their life or liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable," not arbitrary, thus introducing the concept of due process of law into India. This case is fundamental for understanding the expanse of fundamental rights, especially regarding the right to travel abroad and the essence of personal liberty. However, its legal doctrine is centered on procedural fairness and personal liberty, and it does not specifically address or apply the Precautionary Principle in the context of environmental protection.

The incorrect option is 3:
**Keshavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, 1973** is perhaps the most fundamental case in Indian constitutional history, defining the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. This judgment is famous for propounding the **Basic Structure Doctrine**, holding that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution, although it can amend other parts. This case is purely about the amending power of Parliament and the structure of the Constitution itself. While every subsequent constitutional case relies on its doctrine, the judgment itself has no direct connection to environmental law, the Precautionary Principle, or attacking the causes of environmental degradation.