- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
RAHUL BHARDWAJ ANR. v. THE STATE ORS.
Summary of Judicial Opinion: W.P.(C) 14483/2021
Factual and Procedural Background
The present matter is a Public Interest Litigation filed as W.P.(C) 14483/2021 in which the petitioners seek multiple writs and directions relating to environmental protection. The petition prays, among other things, for the constitution of a Special Commission on Environment, formulation of policy on the principle of "one person one tree", enforcement measures for environmental duties (including penalties), subsidy support for tree nurseries, enhanced liability on forest departments, and prioritised protection of metropolitan cities facing high pollution. Petitioner No.1 appeared in person and argued for directions to constitute the Special Commission and frame the proposed policy, describing such framing as necessary in view of increasing pollution and environmental deterioration. The Court heard Petitioner No.1 and reserved its decision, delivering an oral judgment disposing of the writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute a Special Commission on Environment and to frame a policy based on the principle of "one person one tree".
- Whether the respondents should be directed to plan for enforceability of the fundamental duty under Article 48-A, including imposing penalties for non‑compliance.
- Whether the Court should direct respondents to reallocate expenditure from temporary measures to sustainable development planning to accelerate national growth.
- Whether respondents should be directed to subsidise tree plantation nurseries and encourage establishment of new nurseries for trees claimed to provide continuous oxygen supply.
- Whether higher liability should be fixed on forest departments (Union and States) to enable penalties against citizens who do not maintain a tree throughout their life.
- Whether respondents should be directed to prioritise protection of metropolitan cities facing high pollution while simultaneously planning for the entire country.
- Whether the Court should issue any other writ, order or direction it deems fit to enforce the fundamental rights and duties referenced by the petitioners.
- Whether costs should be awarded in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner No.1's Arguments
- The Court should direct the respondents to constitute a Special Commission on Environment and to frame a policy on the principle of "one person one tree".
- Framing of such a policy is urgent and necessary because pollution is increasing and environmental conditions are deteriorating.
- General reliefs were sought for stronger enforcement of environmental duties, penalties, subsidy for nurseries, increased liabilities on forest departments, and prioritised protection for polluted metropolitan cities.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any arguments advanced by the Respondents in opposition; only the petitioner's submissions are recorded.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Satpal Saini, (2017) 11 SCC 42 | That framing of policies is the domain of the Government and courts should not direct framing of policy; policy-making involves expert knowledge and is not ordinarily for judicial substitution. | The Court relied on this decision to reinforce that it cannot direct the executive to frame the petitioner's proposed environmental policy and that policy formulation is the executive's responsibility under separation of powers. |
| Ashwini Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 585 | That policy-making is a complex phenomenon entrusted to the executive and courts lack the expertise to substitute their views in framing policy; judicial review is limited to testing reasonableness, fairness and constitutionality. | The Court cited this decision to support the proposition that it cannot issue directions to the executive to frame a particular policy, though it retains power to strike down policies that are unreasonable, arbitrary or unconstitutional. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the settled principle that framing of policies is the domain of the Government and not the function of the judiciary. The opinion explicitly states that policy-making is a complex process based on expert knowledge in the relevant fields and that courts are not equipped to substitute expert executive decision-making with judicially crafted policies. The Court relied on the cited Supreme Court authorities to support this view.
The Court explained the scope of judicial review: while it will not direct formulation of policy, it can examine and strike down a policy or executive action if it is found to be unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary, unlawful or violative of Constitutional mandates (including Article 14). The doctrine of separation of powers was invoked to underline that formulation of policy is entrusted to the Executive and that the predominant role of the Court is to interpret and expound law rather than to legislate or direct policy.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court concluded that the petitions' prayers seeking directions to frame a specific environmental policy on the principle of "one person one tree" amount to asking the Court to direct the executive to make policy. Because courts should not direct the executive to frame policy, those prayers could not be allowed. However, the Court clarified that petitioners are free to make comprehensive representations to the concerned respondents, and that any such representation shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is DISPOSED OF and the prayers seeking directions to the Government to formulate an environmental policy on the principle of "one person one tree" are refused.
Implications:
- The Court declined to direct the respondents to constitute a Special Commission on Environment or to frame the specific policy sought by the petitioners, reaffirming the executive's exclusive domain over policy formulation.
- The Court retained the established position that it may intervene to strike down policies or executive actions that are unreasonable, arbitrary, unlawful or unconstitutional, but it will not itself frame policy.
- The petitioners have been granted the liberty to make a comprehensive representation to the concerned respondents; any such representation shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.
- The opinion does not purport to lay down any new precedent beyond applying existing Supreme Court principles to refuse the reliefs sought; no broader novel legal rule is announced within this judgment.
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or a direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to constitute a special commission on environment for bringing the policy on sustainable development for further directing concerned special commission to hear the matter expeditiously on day to day basis and further fix a timeframe within which the said matter may be decided and further direct the concerned special court to file a status report every week regarding the status of the said case so that 'one person one tree' policy can be executed. W.P.(C) 14483/2021 Page 2 of 4
(ii) Issue a writ order or a direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to plan for enforceability of fundamental duty under article 48-A and there should be penalty of not abiding the rules related to protection of environment.
(iii) Issue a writ, order, direction, instructions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to decrease the expenditures on temporary measures and to plan for sustainable developments so that country can grow on higher speed.
(iv) Issue a writ, order, direction, instructions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing Respondents to subsidies the tree plantation nurseries and encourage for new nurseries to be established where trees discussed above which can be grown in dark and can provide 24 hour oxygen.
(v) Issue a writ, order, direction, instructions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to fix higher liability on forest departments of union and all states so that penalty can be enforced on citizen who does not maintain a tree in his whole life.
(vi) Issue a writ, order, direction, instructions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to plan to protect metropolitan cities which are facing high pollution on preference bases and simultaneously for whole Country.
(vii) Issue such other appropriate Writ or an Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present petition to enforced the fundamental rights of citizens including 21,21-A,48-A and
(viii)Award costs of the writ in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper; according to the fact and circumstances of the present case.
2. Petitioner No.1, who appears in person, submits that directions be issued to the Respondents to constitute a Special Commission on Environment and frame a policy for protection of the environment on the principle of one person one tree. He submits that framing a policy is the W.P.(C) 14483/2021 Page 3 of 4 need of the hour when the pollution is increasing and there is deterioration in the environmental conditions.
3. We have heard Petitioner No.1, who has canvassed the above argument.
4. It is a settled law that framing policies is the domain of the Government and it is not for this Court to direct framing of any policy. We are fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Satpal Saini, (2017) 11 SCC 42 and Ashwini Kumar
v. UOI and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 585.
5. From the aforesaid judgements, it is explicitly clear that making a policy with respect to environmental protection and/or issuing Guidelines thereunder is purely a matter of policy decision of the Government and a very complex phenomenon. It is no longer res integra that a Court will not interfere in policy making as the policies are framed based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned in the respective fields. Courts are not equipped with the necessary expertise to substitute their own views and direct formulation of policies tailor-made to suit the requirements of the Petitioner in a given case. While exercising the power of judicial review, it must be kept in mind that Court cannot direct, advise or sermonise the executive in matters of policy framing, which is purely the domain of the executive under the doctrine of separation of powers.
6. Courts can certainly examine a policy or an action of the Executive, if it is unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary or unlawful or if it is unconstitutional, but cannot issue directions to frame a policy in a particular manner. There is a clear separation of power in the scheme of the Constitution of India and the duty to formulate policy is entrusted to the W.P.(C) 14483/2021 Page 4 of 4 Executive. Predominant role of the Court is to expound and interpret the law and not to legislate.
7. This should, however, not be understood to mean that a Court would abdicate its responsibility to scrutinize and test, whether the policy in question is unreasonable, unfair or violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in case it is so found, it can certainly be struck down.
8. In this view, prayers relating to formulation of the policy relating to environmental protection and directing that it be made on the principle of one person one tree, as suggested by the Petitioners, cannot be allowed. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain the present petition and direct the Government to frame a policy.
9. However, it will be open to the Petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the concerned Respondents, ventilating their grievances and also giving suggestions, if any, towards protection of the environment. As and when such a representation is preferred by the Petitioner(s), the same shall be considered by the concerned Respondents, in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. CHIEF JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 18, 2022/sn
Alert