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

RAHUL BHARDWAJ & ANR. Versus THE STATE & ORS.

RAHUL BHARDWAJ & ANR. Versus THE STATE & ORS. - TMI 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 Policies
The 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 Penalties
The 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 Cities
The 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.