Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Ors

Essar Oil Ltd. sought to lay pipelines to pump crude oil from a single buoy mooring in the sea across a portion of a Marine National Park and Marine Sanctuary to their oil refineries in Jamnagar District. On the basis of public interest litigation petitions the High Court had held that Essar was not allowed to lay its pipelines. The Supreme Court had to answer the question whether pipelines carrying crude oil could be permitted to go through the Marine National Park and Sanctuary. The answer to the question depended on an interpretation of the provisions of three statutes, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The court emphasized that the interpretation had to be done keeping in mind the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 which had been described as the "Magna-Carta of our environment". It stressed the importance of maintaining a balance between economic development on the one hand and environment protection on the other. But in a sense all development was an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population together with consequential demands to sustain the population had resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which people were breathing. However there needed not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one could be sacrificed at the altar of the other. The State had to, while directing the grant of a permit in any case, see that the habitat of the wild life was at least sustained and that the damage to the habitat did not result in the destruction of the wild life. That was the implicit major premise contained in the definition of the word "sanctuary" in the Wildlife Protection Act. It could not be said, however, that the invariable consequence of laying pipelines through ecologically sensitive areas has been the destruction or removal of the wild life. There was no a priori presumption of destruction of wild life in the laying of pipelines. These observations however were not meant as a general licence to lay a net work of pipelines across sanctuaries and natural parks. Every application had to be dealt with on its own merits keeping in view the need to sustain the environment. In conclusion, given the in depth scrutiny of the possible damage which could be caused by the laying of the pipelines and the stringent conditions imposed to obviate such possible damage, and the opinion of the expert bodies consulted, the court saw no reason to interfere with the grant of permission to lay the pipelines. The leave was therefore granted.