File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Judicial Contribution In Enhancing Environmental Jurisprudence In India: A brief understanding

“Life means not only physical existence. It means the use of every limb or faculty through which life is enjoyed…… the right to life includes the right to healthy environment.” - Justice PN Bhagwati[1]
Introduction
It is the dream of every person to have healthy environment because environment is the most important factor to support not only human life but also life of many species. But now a days in the name of modernization, urbanization, economic development etc man himself creating a harmful environment around him. For this no country can claim an exception either it is a developed country or developing country can claim an exception. So, India is also one among these. Here people, organizations as well as government all are playing a vital role. Because of greedy towards quick development without having consciousness about environment and failure of the state agencies in making and implementation effective enforcing environmental laws has resulted in degrading of the environment. Moreover, we are witnessing ecological imbalance, traumatic subversion of the eco-system, global warming, cyclones, earthquake, tsunami, floods, radiation problems and pollution in atmosphere in case of air, water, land and what not.

It is the known fact that healthy environment is basic need of everyone. So, obviously everyone should feel it as their duty to protect environment. Protection of environment is need not only for present generation but also for enjoyment and continuation of life by our next generations. In fact the concept of environment protection is not a new concept in India it has been prevalence from times immemorial in our country in the name of customs, religious rites etc. in one word during ancient period man and environment were said t be inseparable.
During medieval and modern period science and technologies have given place for too many environmental problems for which state started to make laws to prevent these problems. In this regard there are several specific as well as general laws including constitution of India specifically provided by State which require the state and the citizens to protect environment.

Here it is worthwhile to note that in the year 1972 (June 5 to 16) United Nations Organization conducted a world countries meet to discuss about environmental problems in the name of ‘the United nations conference on the Human environment’, it was held at Stockholm, in Switzerland. This meet was famous as Stockholm declaration 1972. In this meet the then PM Smt. Indira Gandhi represented our country. After this, UNO has been creating a plat form by conducting several meets and conference among member countries and other countries to deal about environmental issues. By which it still trying to create awareness and exchanging of ideas for reduction of environmental pollution. Among them Earth summit-1992, Jamesburg convention, Rameswar convention etc are more important. The fortunate thing is that in all most all of these conventions India is one of the member and signatory country.

This Stockholm declaration provided a chance to industrially developed nations as well as to developing nations to deal about rights of the human to have a productive, healthy, clean and green environment. More over the declaration declared that there is an urgent need to work for economic development as well as environmental protection for which every country should strive for “sustainable development”. The concept of sustainable development says that one should maintain environmental safety without compromising economic development. It means there is a need for thoughtful use of resources by present generation without damaging interest of the coming generations. For this noble work India also inspired and it also taken several steps in furtherance.

The dynamic leader the than PM Smt. Indira Gandhi inspired by this conference and under her leader ship Indian government proposed 42nd amendment in the year 1976 to the Indian Constitution and inserted several new provisions to Constitution of India and also passed several statutory laws specifically to protection and promotion of clean and green environment and to prevent environment pollution.

But due to many reasons this protection guidelines become dead letters in our country. So, the responsibility regarding prevention of environmental pollution and promotion of health environment has taken by the Indian Judiciary through Judicial Activism in Environmental protection. Mainly higher judiciary such as high courts and apex court of India especially by means of various Public Interest Litigation, under original jurisdiction and even by suo-moto action, in accordance with the growing national needs and with the global scenario like right to healthy environment, sustainable development etc.


Methodology
The researcher used the doctrinal research methodology to write this present research article. For this researcher collected the data from both primary as well as secondary source. The primary data consists of the provisions provided by International Conventions, the Constitution of India, Several other statutory laws, judicial pronouncements given by Judiciary such as high court and apex court of India and law commission reports etc. The secondary data contains various research papers, text books, articles by eminent professionals in various journal print as well as online and information from electronic media, and from internet source etc.

Objectives of the present study
The specific objectives of the present study are

  1. To analyze the role of Indian Judiciary in enhancing environmental jurisprudence in detail
  2. To study the position of environmental protection in India before and after 1972.
  3. To find out international conventions and declarations impact on Indian environmental Jurisprudence.
  4. To study Constitutional provisions regarding environmental protection and reduction of environmental pollution.
  5. To study various judicial pronouncements given by Indian higher judiciary in implementation of environmental administration and promoting environmental Justice in India.


Importance of Judiciary in promoting justice (environmental rights to)
Judiciary is one of the organs of the State which aimed to provide justice. India is one of the biggest democratic countries in the world. So, obviously in a democratic country judiciary plays a pivotal role. So, it performs various important role and functions; most importantly Indian judiciary has a constitutional duty to protect and safeguard Individuals rights in the country, and to safeguarding constitutional goals.

Thus, one can say that judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and people. In general, judiciary in democratic state must confine to interpretation of laws in accordance with the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’, but the Judiciary in India do not remain confined within the traditional jurisdiction of Civil and Criminal and mere interpretation of laws. Being a custodian of constitution and individual rights judiciary has been expanding its functions to protect people in number of issues. It is also true in regard to environment protection; it had recognized pollution free, clean and green environment as a fundamental right under Art.14 and 21 of the constitution and as primary human right under UDHR.

At the same time by introducing numerous legal doctrines and by interpretation of constitution it also recognized that, it is the fundamental duty of the state as well as the individual to protect environment[2], where ever necessary there courts also providing suggestions and even punishing the wrongdoers. To know more elaborately about Indian judiciary contribution regarding environmental protection one has to know about the events before and after 1972 that means position before and after Stockholm declaration held at Sweden.

Evolution of Legal Principles and Doctrines in Environmental Jurisprudence in India

Position of Environmental protection in India before 1972
Prior to 1972, that means during ancient period in the name of customs and religious practices and even during British period and after independence, laws provided scope to Indian judiciary to protect environment in direct and indirect way in the form of rights and duties of an individual towards the other in civil and criminal laws like nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict liability etc and protection of forest[3], animals[4], prevention of pollution etc. but being a developed country all these laws were not adequate to deal with growing environmental pollution and to safeguard environment. Here the Stockholm declaration, 1972 played a vital role to activate Indian judiciary regarding protection of environment and to prevent and control environmental pollution through proper laws, principles and doctrines.

Significance of Stockholm declaration
The government of Sweden had taken an initiative step to host the UN conference on “United Nations Conference on the Human Environment” at Sweden, which, was held conducted in the year 1972 (June 5–16). In the international environmental law this conference is the first major multilateral meet. This meet ultimately come to a final declaration on environment which is known as “Stockholm Declaration”. This conference is the most important one in the history regarding the issues relating to clean, safety, healthy and pollution free etc human environment. Prior to Stockholm, there were several treaties between nations regarding environmental matters but all of those resulted from specific issues that to between those countries which are geographically nearer to one another. So, those treaties were called as either bilateral or regional. In fact environmental treaties were anthropocentric since they were made mainly to secure the interests of the participant countries only. Best example for this is “The International Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (Paris) 19 March 1902”[5].

Later because of many incidences like “the Trail Smelter dispute” [6] etc. world countries started to gave a fresh thought to the industrialization. Nations started to think development with environmental protection. This scenario led to the international as well as national legislation on environmental protection by agreeing upon a declaration, which has 26 principles about the environment and development and also it has Action Plan with 109 suggestions and several resolutions.[7]. So under the obligation of this conference States started to make legislations for the protection of environment, it was also true in case of India. India made numerous legislations[8] as well as it mad 42nd constitutional amendment[9]. In fact all these pawed a away for the Indian Judiciary to interpret the environmental issues in best way after 1972 then prior to it[10].

Position of Environmental protection in India before 1972
After 1972, being one of the signatory country Indian government passed several laws for the protection environment and also provided constitutional safeguard by 42nd amendment more over if one try to analyze several judgments of the Supreme Court, it is clear that it had and has been trying at its best in a hard manner to prevent pollution and to protect water, land, coastal areas, towns and cities, air, forest and wildlife etc. More over it is notable point that Indian Judiciary declared that pollution free, clean, green and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and at the same time it also insisted governments to provide pollution free and healthy environment to people as it primary duty of the government even though it was a DPSP under Article 48A. More over it also insisted individuals to follow their fundamental duty under Article 51A (g) as it their primary duty towards present and future generations.

There are so many case laws through which Indian judiciary evolved numerous legal principles and doctrines for protection of environment and prevention and control of environmental pollution. Some of them are

  • Absolute Liability Principle
  • Polluter Pay Principle (PPP)
  • Precautionary Principle (PP)
  • Public Trust Doctrine
  •  Intergenerational Equity Principle
  • Doctrine of Sustainable Development and etc


Absolute Liability principle:
The concept of ‘Absolute Liability Principle’ is not a traditional principle in environmental jurisprudence. Absolute liability principle is also referring as ‘no fault liability’, where the wrong doer has no opportunity to claim exceptions. This absolute liability is a principle which was created by Indian judiciary in the place of strict liability, where wrong doer has some exceptions[11]. The strict liability principle is a concept pronounced by the House of Lords in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher[12]. This case has created new arena in English tort law.
The principle of Absolute liability is more stringent from of strict liability, and was recognized by Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum gas leak case)[13]. This case originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi[14]. This gas leak occurred soon after the Bhopal gas leak in Madhya Pradesh and created a lot of panic in Delhi[15]. Bhagwati CJ. was a pioneer in this important development, felt that the rule laid in Rylands v. Fletcher is not suitable in this case and there is a need for new principle by which wrong doer should not escape by any exception and victims should get definite justice. While deciding this case he also stated that the concept of strict liability was evolved in 19th century at England and at that time the industrial developments was at starting stage, but now in this modern society industrialization was at peak stage. So, it is the duty of the court to safeguard society from hazardous substances of the industry. In furtherance of this aim the old principle strict liability is not suitable in India scenario.

So, the Supreme Court created the principle of absolute liability or no fault theory in the place of the strict liability. This principle clearly says that those industries which are dealing with dangerous or hazardous substances while they are engaging their activities caused to any accident and resulted in harm to anyone then that enterprises are absolutely liable to compensate without any exceptions. More over court also held that for filing a case regarding this type of case there will be no burden of proof on the petitioner to explain how it was happened or it was caused because of negligence of employer or employee(s) of that respective industry. Here the notable point is that there is no need to show locus standee by the petitioner. In fact this locus standee and burden of proof creates barriers to petitioners to approach court and to plead relief immediately. Later, to strengthen this principle Indian government passed a statute known as “The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991”, where this principle was recognized[16] even in legislation.

In Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action v. Union of India (‘H’ acid case) [17] the Supreme court of India strictly held that absolute liability principle which laid in olieum gas case is not mere an obiter dicta, it should be followed strictly. In recognition of the principle of absolute liability SC had given its dynamic precedents in Narmada Bacho Andolan v. Union of India and Others[18] and in M.C. Metha v. Kamal Nath and Others[19] etc cases.

Polluter Pays Principle (PPP):
The polluter pays principle is not a new concept it’s just an extension and provided broadens to the absolute liability principle. So, this principle is also known as ‘extended producer responsibility’. The notable point in this principle is by applying this principle the damage caused to environment will be remedied by the court. In fact this concept is very much important to achieve the aim of the sustainable development. This principle was well explained by apex court of India while deciding Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) as "The polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology”. Thomas Lindhvist, a Swedish government person probably is the first person who explained the true meaning of the principle[20]. In fact originally this principle applied by the courts where one is actually involved in environmental pollution by emission, etc., but later this principle started to apply in all the cases where an activity caused for deterioration of the environment.

This principle was clearly mentioned in Stockholm declaration 1972, Brundtland report 1987, and in Rio declaration 1992 etc. After participation of India in Stockholm declaration it incorporated this ‘Polluter Pay Principle’ in several legislations to regulate, control and to prevent solid wastes, hazardous substances emissions. One of the best examples for this is the environment protection Act, 1986. This Act clearly says about the liability of the occupier, transporter, and operator handling hazardous waste to enforce the principle[21]. Non-compliance of this was made as civil as well as criminal liability[22]. Moreover, the Public insurance liability Act also specified how much compensation was to be paid for every degree of injury or death of civilians and/or workmen[23] and it is also worth to remember here about section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which clearly says about the principle upon which this Tribunal should function.

In case of Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India[24], the apex court of India provided remedial action and compensation for the loss sufferer by citizens due to environmental pollution. In several cases like Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India[25], in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums case[26] and in M.C. Metha v. Kamal Nath and Others[27] Supreme court of India interpreted the ‘Polluter Pays Principles’ as ‘the absolute liability of the wrong doer in case of causing harm to the environment extends not only to compensate to the victims of pollution, but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation”.

Thus polluter pay principle says liability not only to the victims of the incident but also to the damaged ecology to restore the environment. In fact this remediation of the damage and environment is part of the process of Sustainable Development.

Precautionary principle (PP):
The precautionary principle is principle based on the prevention concept. The main aim of this concept is it is better and safe to take prevention methods than say sorry after happening of an event. This principle will lay where there is risk of severe damage to environment or to the human(s) or to the both. Most interesting point here is that there is no need of definite scientific proof or conclusive proof to apply this principle.

Generally in traditional legal system in case of environment or in some cases there is a policy of wait and see. But, by this new principle even prior to the happening of an event one can take anticipate or preventive step to prevent harm to humans as well as to environment. It is in fact based on “Precaution is better than cure”. The term ‘precautionary principle’ had its origin in the German word Vorsorgeprinzip. Though the principle had its origin in the German environmental jurisprudence, it has entered in to the global environment policy due to several global environmental treaties. In simple terms, the PP conveys the common-sense based advice – to err on the side of caution. The principle intends to prevent harm to humans, environment, and eco-system at large.

The principle suggests that where there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including to humans or to the eco-system it should be stopped before its happening. The Supreme Court of India since 1996 applying this principle to protect and preserve environment. One can witness this in several cases like A. P. Pollution Control board Case[28], Narmada Bacho Andolans’ case[29], Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[30], Godavarman Thirumal Pad v. Union of India[31], K. M. Chinnappa v. Union of India[32], Noyyal River Ayacutdars Association’s case[33] and so on. The apex court applied this principle. In the Research Foundation[34] case, the Supreme Court of India held that ship breaking cannot be allowed unless the company adheres to the precautionary principle. In the Court on Its Own Motion[35] case, the apex court clearly stated that precautionary principle is an integral part of the life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

In case of Orissa Mining case[36], the forest advisory committee pleaded before the Supreme Court that the PP is only available remedy to prevent the irreversible damage to the ecosystem. This plea was accepted by the court in this case to prevent harm to the environment. In G. Sundarrajan case[37], the apex court of India accepted that this PP principle along with several other international environmental principles helps in preventing environmental degradation. In State of Tamil Nadu case[38], the Supreme Court of India suggested that though this PP concept can apply in case of lack of strict scientific proof many times people may fell that unless there is a proof how they can approach court.

So, the competent authority like pollution control boards must anticipate and apply this principle to prevent environmental damage. Like, above in many case the apex court has interpreted this PP principle to prevent pollution and to protect environment. Here it is also important to note that ‘The rule of EIA’ (Principle of Environmental Impact Assessment) based on this PP and PPP principles.

Public Trust Doctrine:
The concept of ‘Public Trust Doctrine’ has its roots in the ancient Roman Empire legal policy. This principle says that certain resources like water, air, sea, land and the forest etc are the gifts of the God or nature and they should be made freely available to everyone to enjoy their life irrespective of the stares of the persons. And it is not good to provide private ownership on these valuable resources (except on land). More over this principle provides a duty on the king/ government to protect these resources for the enjoyment of public rather than to permit their enjoyment or use by some private entities either for their own or for commercial purpose.
The doctrine of public trust serves mainly two purposes; they are

  1. This doctrine says about affirmative action by the nation for effective and optimum management of the natural resources. And
  2. This principle also empowers citizens to question miss/ ineffective management of the resources.


In fact this is also a common law concept. Many jurists and academicians defined and addressed this concept in several countries like US, UK etc. though it is a old concept in recent decades this principle got the importance and providing a scope for placing a duty on the state to hold natural resources in trust for the benefit of the general public and it also given teeth to the courts to interpret environmental problems basing on this concept and to prevent degradation of environment and to protect ecosystem. Being a follower of the common law by the Indian courts applied this concept in numerous cases. Among them the important case is M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[39], which is a landmark case in Indian environmental law based on this important principle. In this case apex court interpreted this principle in widest form and held that it is the duty of the government to manage the natural resource and prevent miss management of resources. More over it also held that natural resources should not be transferred to private ownership they should be available for the use of general public. Here the governments should act only as trusty the ultimate beneficiary are general public only.

Like above in several cases like M. I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu[40], Rambabu v. Divisional Forest Officer[41], Intellectual Forum v. State of A.P.[42], Andhra Pradesh State Fihserman’s case[43], Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd., v. Minguel Martins case[44] etc. and more importantly in a recent and popular spectrum allocation case[45] the Supreme Court applied this Public Trust Doctrine.

Intergenerational equity principle:
The concept of ‘Inter generational Equity’ is also not a new principle if one has a close look in the sustainable development principle and in resource conservation idea finds this inter generational equity principle is an integral part. The main aim of this principle is to put a moral obligation on the present generation regarding management of balances between environmental safety and economic development. It stresses on the reorganization equal rights of the present and future generation on the environmental resources. This principle says that there is no difference between past, present and future generation’s welfare on this earth by the way of rights to enjoy natural resources. In fact all these generations has a close link, moral and legal obligation to protect this environment. This theory also says that no present generation can claim preferential rights over the future generation.

In several case the Indian judiciary recognized this principle clearly. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products[46], the court held that a state’s approval is contrary to public interest. More over court also held that maintenance and preservation of forest, natural resources etc for future generation is a duty on the part of governments as well as on the citizens based on the concept of sustainable development and inter-Generational equity principle. Like this in several pronouncements in many cases like Dighi Koli Samaj Mumbai (Regd) v. Union of India[47], Dr. Meenakshi Bharath v. State of Karnataka[48] etc reiterated the sustainable concept as well as inter generational equity rights principle by recognizing future generation’s interests on this earth.

The Doctrine of Sustainable development:
The main motto of the sustainable development principle is the development must possess both economic and ecological sustainability. Sustainable development is not a new concept to India as well as in other countries. Even during primitive human society they recognized the solidarity between humans, economic needs and environment safety. Because of which in the name of traditions, customs, religious principles they tried to protect relation between human and environment. But in this 21st industrial and information society these were become dead letters so to reinforce these principles nations for the protection of environment created a concept of ‘sustainable development’. This concept has evolved and developed in Indian environmental jurisprudence because of judicial activism.
The history of sustainable development in the international platform can be traced back to Stockholm conference 1972. This conference declared that “to defend and improve the human environment for present and future generations has become an imperative goal for mankind”. By this principle this conference created an idea of ‘sustainable development’ although the phrase itself was not clearly mentioned.

Following on from this conference, the UN General Assembly established the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983. This commission was chaired by the former PM of Norway, Gro Harlum Brundtland. So, this was famous as “Brundtland Commission”. This commission submitted their report in the year 1987 with title “Our Common Future”. Because of this commission this concept was popularized. In this report it was held that sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That means economic development with environmental safety.
Indian judiciary by creating direct link between sustainable concept and article 21 of the Indian Constitution in several cases it reiterated this principle as one of the primary element in governance of state. Though this concept was international law principle it was interpreted by the court as it is municipal law under the Constitution of India.

In several cases like Soman v. Geologist[49], Thilakan v. Circle Inspector of Police and Other[50], T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others[51] etc Indian judiciary accepted this principle and held that sustainable development is a universally accepted principle.

Hence, the concept of Sustainable Development helps to maintain equilibrium between economic development and conservation of resources. This can be achieved with the help of effective usage of technology by remembering environmental safety.

Establishment of NGT
Like above apex court in its numerous pronouncements worked hard to protect environment from environmental pollution. But at the same time it also recognized the need for new directions and speedy remedy to provide environmental education and awareness among people it proposed for ‘Green Courts’, Because environmental issues needs an expert, scientific assistance and at the same time immediate action to do justice. At the same time there are several demands from various communities in the society and based on the 186th law Commission recommendations finally “The national green tribunal Act, 2010” came in to force with effect from 18th September, 2010.

This Act created NGT as a special form and as a quasi judicial body. More over this Act has given short term as well as long term objectives to NGT for the prevention and control of environmental pollution and at the same time to protect and promote environmental safety. Presently NGT has been working greatly in our society, which one can witness from recent orders passed by NGT in various cases.

Suggestions:
After detailed analysis finally one can come to a conclusion that Indian judiciary has been striving hard in a great manner for protection and promotion of healthy environment. But it is not enough. So for the better future through environmental protection the author would like to recommend some of the following suggestions. They are
There is an urgent need to create awareness among the people regarding protection and promotion of environment and to prevent environment pollution.
It is the need of the hour for many more harmless scientific and legal research.
There is a necessity global understanding and all Governments must have an effective laws, implementation plans and monitory mechanisms at International, national and local level.
Through legal frame work stringent punishments must be provided for violations of environmental rules and regulations.
Print and electronic media has to play an important role to create mass awareness.
Every person should feel that it is their duty to protect mother earth.

Conclusion:
Like above the Indian judiciary including national green tribunal has been playing a pivotal role in protection and promotion of safe environment not only for present generation but also for future generations. In this journey Indian judiciary has been creating several new environmental principles with the help of international and national environmental principles and contributing its wonderful part for evolution and enhancement of Indian environmental jurisprudence. It has evolved new doctrine and principles to deal with conflicting interests of various group of the society. Here it is the notable point that Indian judiciary through its various land mark judgments recognized that right to have healthy environment as one of the basic human right as well as fundamental right. All these are welcome steps but it is not enough, Indian judiciary as well as Indian environmental jurisprudence has miles to go in which State as well as its subjects has to take part.

Hence, it is true that it is not only the duty of judiciary to protect the environment, but it is duty of every nation and every person to protect the environment. All we should remember that we have only one mother earth in this universe without which life existence and continuity is not possible. As rightly said by Sri David Attenborough “Surely we have a responsibility to leave for future generations a planet that is healthy and habitable by all species” [52]

End-Notes
[1] Available : https://www.thequint.com/news/india/5-landmark-rulings-of-justice-pn-bhagwati
[2] Art. 48A and Art. 51A)g).
[3] The Indian Forest Act, 1927
[4] Prevention of cruelty to animals, 1960
[5] Available at: http://www.appropedia.org/International_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Birds_Useful_to_ Agriculture
[6] The Trail Smelter case is a case between Canada and the USA. In fact this case is the main responsible event for the creating “The harm principle or Polluter principle” in the jurisprudence of environmental law.
Available at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_Smelter_dispute
[7] Available at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_the_Human_Environment
[8] The Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the Water Act, 1974, the forest (conservation) Act, 1980, the Air Act, 1981,the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, protection of plant variety and farmers right Act, 2001, Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 etc.
[9] Inserted 48A and 51A(g).
[10] Even prior to 1972 courts also deal with environmental issues under concepts of nuisance, trespass, negligence and strict liability under Tort law, Cr.P.C 1973 and under IPC 1980. But all these are not adequate.
[11] Strict liability had 5 important exceptions like consent of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s own default, Act of stranger, act of God or Vis major, where escape caused for common benefit of plaintiff and defendant and statutory authority etc.
[12] (1868) LR 3 HL 330:LRI and available at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher
[13] AIR 1987 SC 965
[14] This is a case came before the Supreme Court of India through a PIL petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. This case was a gas leakage case which was happened on the 4th and 5th December, 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi. Because of this leakage several people were dead and many were injure among them one Advocate is also there. So, to provide proper remedy to victims M.C Mehta, A lawyer by profession and a committed environmentalist by choice approached the apex court of India.
[15] The Bhopal disaster is world’s worst industrial disaster happened in the year 1984 at Bhopal in Madhya pradesh. In this incident Methyl iso cyanate gas (MIC) gas and several other chemicals leaked and caused for loss of life and property of the several people.
[16] Section 3 of the public liability insurance Act, 1991.
[17] AIR 1996 SC 1446
[18] AIR 2000 SC 3751; (2000) 10 SCC 664
[19] (2006) 6 SCC 213
[20] The International institute for industrial Environmental economics at Lund University, Sweden(2000). Available at : http://lex-warrier.in/2013/06/polluter-pays-principle/#identifier_1_3706
[21] Rule 16, the Hazardous Wastes Management and Handling Rules 1989.
[22] Section 15, the Environmental protection Act 1986.
[23] Section 3 read with the Schedule of the Public liability insurance Act, 1991.
[24] (1996) 5 SCC 218
[25] (2005) 10 SCC 664.
[26] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715; (1996) 5 SCC 647
[27] (2006) 6 SCC 213
[28] A. P. Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718; AIR 1999 SC 812.
[29] Narmada Bacho Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SC 664
[30] AIR 1996 SC 2715; (1996) 5 SCC 647
[31] AIR 2000 SC 1636
[32] AIR 2002 SC 724
[33] (2009) 9 SCC 737; AIR 2010 SC 3645
[34] Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v. Union of India AIR 2012 SC 2627
[35] Court on Its Own Motion v. Union of India (2012) 12 SCC 497
[36] Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forest (2013) 6 SCC 476
[37] G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 620
[38] State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala AIR 2014 SC 2407
[39] (2006) 6 SCC 213
[40] (1999) 6 SCC 464.
[41] AIR 2002 Kant. 123
[42] (2006) 3 SCC 549
[43] (2010) 3 ALD 300; 22; (2006) 6 SCC 371, para. 83.
[44] (2009) 3 SCC 571 at paras. 52-55 and 65.
[45] 9 Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1.
[46] AIR 1996 SC 149 at 163.
[47] 2009 (5) Bom. CR 97.
[48] 2012 (4) Kar LJ 248.
[49] 2004 (3) KLT 577 at para 15; Ashwani Chobisa v. Union of India and Ors, RLW (2005) 1 Raj 389 at para. 24.
[50] AIR 2008 Ker. 48 at para 17.
[51] AIR 2000 SC 1636
[52] Available at : http://www.philharding.net/quotes-corner/quotes-corner-1sd.htm

Written By: Dr. Koneru Anuradha - Assistant Professor in Law, SVD Siddhartha Law College, Kanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna DT, AP State, India. Pin code: 52007.
Phone no. 9491448532. Email: [email protected]

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

Titile

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

Facade of Social Media

Titile

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Sexually Provocative Outfit Statement In...

Titile

Wednesday, Live Law reported that a Kerala court ruled that the Indian Penal Code Section 354, ...

UP Population Control Bill

Titile

Population control is a massive problem in our country therefore in view of this problem the Ut...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly