Environmental law is seen as the body of laws concerned with the protection of living things (human beings inclusive) from the harm that human activity may immediately or eventually cause to them or their species, either directly or to the media and the habits on which they depend.

The following cases have helped shape the environmental laws of India –

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986) The Ganga Pollution Case

In 1986, lawyer M.C. Mehta brought attention to the severe pollution of the Ganges River through a case against the Union of India.

For many years, industries carelessly contaminated the sacred Ganga River with toxic waste. In response, an important lawsuit challenged this rampant pollution. The outcome of this case set an important legal standard for protecting India's environment. The courts established that industries handling hazardous materials bear total responsibility for any harm caused, even without proof of wrongdoing. No longer could these factories simply pollute with impunity.

As a result of the ruling, many facilities polluting the Ganga were forced to shut down, helping to begin the work of restoring this revered waterway's purity. The "Absolute Liability" principle was devised in this case to protect the environment from further damage by inconsiderate corporations.

T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad vs. Union of India (1997):

This noteworthy case broadened the description of "timberland" under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, driving to a huge increment in the zone under timberland security. It has assumed a pivotal job in ensuring woods and natural life in India.

By amplifying what constituted a "woodland", more regions were shielded from deforestation and improvement venture, giving expanded security to basic natural surroundings and the creatures that depend on them. While deforestation stays a test, this choice demonstrated to be avital initial step in advancing the insurance of India's biodiversityrich backwoods territories.

M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath (1997) The Span Motel Case:

The Supreme Court delivered a ruling against a private company that had improperly encroached upon forest territory and diverted the path of the Beas River. This judgement was significant as it acknowledged the idea of the Public Trust Doctrine within Indian environmental law for one of the initial times. Specifically, the high court decided the private entity had overstepped its bounds by occupying woodland property belonging to the public and altering the flow of the Beas River without lawful permission. This case helped our legal system establish the important Public Trust Doctrine principle. It recognized that citizens have a right to use important natural resources like forests and waterways. The government also has a duty to protect these assets for current and future generations. By balancing these rights and responsibilities, this ruling helped develop the Public Trust Doctrine as a key idea in India's efforts to protect the environment.

Narmada BachaoAndolan vs. Union of India (2000):

This narrative describes the development of the Sardar Sarovar Dam situated along the Narmada River. The Supreme Court's ruling in this matter emphasized harmonizing progress demands with safeguarding the natural world. The court weighed the requirement for infrastructure against protecting the environment from harm. Equitably appraising both viewpoints, the decision highlighted the need for equilibrium between advancement and ecological preservation.

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987) The Oleum Gas Leak Case:

This case by environmental advocate M.C. Mehta tackled discharge of a dangerous gas in Delhi. It reasserted responsibility for a healthy environment as part of the right to life. The leakage posed health risks. The Supreme Court's ruling strengthened protections for right to breathe clean air without toxic exposure. It demonstrated the court's commitment to public health and environment.

Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja &Ors (2014):

This case dealt with the tradition of Jallikattu, a bull taming sport. The Supreme Court recognized the rights of animals under the Constitution and emphasized the need for their protection and welfare.

Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011):

This case investigated the problem of limestone mining in the Indian state of Meghalaya for a cement plant in Bangladesh. It aimed to balance caring for the environment with economic growth. It checked how ramping up rock digging in the area to supply materials for building jobs overseas could affect the natural world. It also thought about the jobs and money such operations might offer locally.