2022 (1) TMI 1435 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Denies Petition on Environmental Policies, Affirms Executive's Role in Policy Formulation and Separation of Powers.

The HC of Delhi dismissed the petition seeking directives on environmental protection policies, enforcement of fundamental duties, and tree plantation ... Public Interest Litigation - constitution of special commission on environment for bringing the policy on sustainable development - framing of policy for protection of the environment on the principle of ‘one person one tree’ - Doctrine of separation of powers - HELD THAT:- 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. 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. 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 Executive. Predominant role of the Court is to expound and interpret the law and not to legislate. The 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 - there are no reason to entertain the present petition and direct the Government to frame a policy. The writ petition is disposed off. Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are related to environmental protection policies, fundamental duties under Article 48-A, sustainable development, tree plantation, penalties for not maintaining trees, protection of metropolitan cities from pollution, and the role of the Court in directing policy formulation.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Environmental Protection PoliciesThe petitioner sought the constitution of a special commission on environment to formulate a policy on sustainable development. The Court held that the framing of policies is the prerogative of the Government and not the Court. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that policy decisions are complex and based on expert knowledge, thus not within the Court's purview. While the Court can review policies for reasonableness, it cannot direct the formulation of policies, as that falls under the executive's domain. The Court clarified that it can strike down policies if found unreasonable or unconstitutional, but cannot dictate policy formulation.Issue 2: Fundamental Duties and PenaltiesThe petitioner requested directives for enforcing fundamental duties under Article 48-A and imposing penalties for non-compliance with environmental protection rules. The Court reiterated that policy formulation is the executive's responsibility and not the Court's. It emphasized the separation of powers and the Court's role in interpreting laws, not legislating. While the Court can scrutinize policies for fairness and constitutionality, it cannot mandate policy formulation. The Court dismissed the plea to direct the Government to frame a policy based on 'one person one tree' principle.Issue 3: Tree Plantation and Metropolitan CitiesThe petitioner urged the respondents to subsidize tree plantation nurseries and increase penalties for citizens not maintaining trees. Additionally, the petitioner sought protection for metropolitan cities facing high pollution levels. The Court reiterated that policy-making is the executive's duty and courts cannot interfere in policy formulation. The Court clarified that it can review policies for reasonableness and fairness but cannot dictate policy content. The Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioners to submit representations to the authorities for consideration.In conclusion, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition seeking directives for environmental protection policies, fundamental duties enforcement, tree plantation subsidies, and metropolitan city protection. The Court emphasized the separation of powers, highlighting that policy formulation is the executive's domain, and courts can only review policies for legality and fairness. The petitioners were granted liberty to submit representations to the authorities for environmental protection concerns.