UNIT-II- Env Law Principles (1).pptx ooo

1. UNIT-II
ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW PRINCIPLES

2. Doctrine of Sustainable
Development
 2 imp. Things:
1) Need for socio-economic devt.
2) Need of limitation imposed on the environment’s
capability to cape with present and future
generations
 Brundtland Report, 1997--- “S.D. --- devt. That
meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs --- S.D. requires meeting
the basic needs of all and

3. extending to all opportunity to satisfy their
aspirations for a better life.”
 In Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. V. Bombay Enviro-Action Group (2006) 3
SCC 434 --- held --- S.D. --- process where
devt. Can be sustainable over generations.
 Main objectives of S.D.:
1)Maintain imp. Ecological processes

4. 2)Preserve genetic diversity
3)Secure sustainable utilisation of species and
ecosystems
 In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union
of India AIR 1996 SC 2715 --- the petitioner
organization --- concerned about water
pollution resulting from the discharge of
untreated effluents by tanneries and other
industries into river Palar in the State of Tamil
Nadu --- a source of drinking water supply ---
SC --- directed the constitution of an authority
under the

5. Environment Act to deal with the situation created
by the tanneries and other polluting industries in the
State. The authority was also directed to frame and
execute scheme(s) for reversing
ecological/environmental damage caused by
pollution in the State --- imposed pollution fine on all
the tanneries, and ordered the closure of tanneries
that fail to pay the fine --- allowed suspension of
closure orders where tanneries agree to set up
common effluent treatment plants or individual
pollution control devices and obtain consent to
operate from the SPCB. Failure to obtain consent
from the SPCB would however result in closure of
tanneries --- also observed S.C. ---- eradication

6. of poverty by social equity and conservation of
biodiversity --- both imp. To S.D.
 In N.D. Dayal v. Union of India (or Tehri Bandh
Case) (2003) 6 SCC 572 --- petition under Article
32 of the constitution was filed connected to the
safety and environmental aspects of the Tehri
Dam (Uttarakhand) --- also, held --- S.D. is
inherent in right to life under Art. 21 of Constitution
of India --- economic and industrial devt.
 Doon Valley Case, or Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P.
AIR 1985 SC 652 --- conflict between devt. And
conservation of environment --- reconcile conflicts
between the two ---

7. --- indiscriminate mining and quarrying ---
denuded Mussoorie hills of forests and trees ---
landslides and blockage of underground water
which fed many rivers and springs in Doon
Valley ---- SC --- held --- closure of lime stone
quarries that operated in the valley ---- no
disturbance in ecology at all.
 Kinkri Devi v State, AIR 1988 HP 4 --- PIL ---
filed alleging that unscientific and uncontrolled
quarrying of the limestone --- caused damage
to shivalik hills --- posing a danger to the
ecology, environment, and inhabitants of the
area --- held ---

8. Proper balance between env. And devt. --- SD
 In Essar Oil Ltd. V. Halar Utkasha Samiti
(2004) 2 SCC 392 (406) --- SC --- held --- SD
balances economic devt. And social needs on
one hand and environmental considerations
on the other.
SALIENT FEATURES OF SD:-
1)Inter-generational equity: already discussed
(Principles 1 and 2 of Stockholm Declaration,
1972 --- genesis)

9.  Conservation of Options
 Conservation of Quality
 Conservation of Access
 A P Pollution Control Board v M V Nayudu,
AIR 1999 --- SC --- Municipal administration
and urban development of Government of AP
--- prohibited various types of development
within 10 km of two lakes, Himayat sagar &
Osman Sagar ---these were the reservoirs to
supply the water in Hyderbad and
Secunderabad ---

10. --- Court ordered that there should not be any
said industries within the radius of 10 km ---
should not pollute the water bodies --- protective
principle --- principle of polluter pays --- and
principle of intergenerational equity
2)Use of Conservation of Natural Resources:
o Principles 8 and 23 of Rio Earth Summit,
1992
o A. Jagannath V. Union of India (1997)2 SCC
87 --- intensified shrimp farming culture --- by
modern method --- in coastal areas ---
degradation of mangroove ecosystem ---
pollution of

11. Portable and ground water --- SC --- held --- sea
beaches and coasts --- gifts of nature --- cannot
be allowed to pollute --- must be an
Environmental Impact Assessment --- govt.
must take into consideration --- principle of
intergenerational equity.
o In Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of
India (2003) 7 SCC 589 --- ivory articles ---
prohibited from being exported --- impugned
Wild Life Protection Act 1972 --- also agt.
Moral claims under Art. 48-A of Constitution of
India.

12. 3)Precautionary Principle:
o Management of scientific risk
o Imp. Strategy for SD
o Any human activity or behaviour which bears
the harmful effect to the environment ---
needs to be prevented at all costs
o protection of the environment can effectively
be done by taking adequate precautions
against the Environmental damage
o Prevention is better than cure
o Principle 15 of Rio Declaration --- “where

13. there is a threat of serious or irreversible env.
Damage --- lack of full scientific certainty should
not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent env. Degradation”
o Versorge prinzip --- term --- Germany ---
foresight principle --- precautionary steps to
prevent likely disaster from any industry or
any hazardous undertaking
o 1st case recognised --- Vellore Citizens’
Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) ---
SC laid follg. Rules on precautionary principle:

14. a) State Govts. And local authorities --- first
anticipate --- then prevent cause of env.
Degradation.
b) Lack of scientific knowledge --- merely
cannot be the reason given.
c) Burden of proof is on the actor (one who
does the activity)/ developer/ industrialist ---
show that the action was environmentally
friendly.
To achieve the above --- following
precautions --- taken :

15. a) Decision should be based on best possible
scientific info. and risk analysis
b) Precautionary ,measures --- taken --- even
where there is uncertainty but potentially
serious risks exists
c) More importance --- give --- ecological
impacts --- more to non-renewable
resources
d) Indication of costs --- polluter pays principle
o Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
(2000)--- Medha Patkar ---

16. --- central organizer and strategist for Narmada
Bachao Andolan (NBA) with environmentalist
Baba Amte --- people’s movement organized to
stop the construction of a series of dams
planned for India’s largest westward flowing
river, the Narmada --- flows through Gujarat, MP
and Maharashtra---movement agt. Construction
of Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat upto 455 feet
--- acute problem of rehabilitation of displaced
people --- taking over of land --- dislocate
thousands of Adivasis from their homeland ---
violation of Art. 21 of COI ---

17. --- SC --- held --- construction of dam --- not
violative of Art. 21 --- however ordered ---
concerned authorities to make sure that the
displaced people were properly rehabilitated
and provided alternative land and residential
accomodation --- so that not deprived of rt. To
livelihood --- also held --- construction of dam ---
necessary for devt --- but there must not be any
damage to env.
o Risk assessment --- imp.

18. 4) Polluter Pays principle:
o Best method of prevention of environmental
pollution
o the person who is responsible for
Environmental pollution should pay the
penalty and compensation for the people.
o Principle 16 of Rio Declaration 1992 --- legally
and internationally recognised --- “National
authorities --- endeavor --- to promote
internationalisation of environmental costs
and use of economic

19. Instruments --- taking into account the approach
that the polluter should in principle bear the cost
of pollution with due regard to public interest
and without destroying int. trade and
investment”
o M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) ---Sc ---
took notice of pollution of the river Beas by
discharge of untreated effluent from the motel
owned by Kamal Nath --- held --- the motel
shall not discharge untreated effluents in the
river and the Himachal Pradesh Pollution
Control Board shall inspect the control
devices and treatment

20. plant set up in the motel.
o In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 363, or, H-Acid
case --- industrial units in Bichhri village in
Rajasthan --- producing chemicals like oleum
(concentrated form of sulphuric acid and H-
acid) --- units did not obtain required
clearance/licences --- did not install any
proper equipment for treating harmful toxic
effluents --- pollution of water --- ill-effects and
consequences still remained ----- held ----
closure of

21. chemical industries --- directed that in future
such industries could be established only after
taking into consideration all environmental
aspects --- polluter pays principle and S.D.
5) Principle of Public Trust:
o Law of the land --- many decisions of
Supreme Court
 Enjoins a duty upon the State to protect
natural resources like air, water, forests, sea,
etc. --- for benefit and enjoyment of general
public --- and not to permit

22. private ownership over them.
o All natural resources should be freely
available.
o Doesnot permit the State to transfer natural
resources to private parties.
o State holds the natural resources as a trustee
for benefit of people who are the real
beneficiaries of this natural resource property.
o The State, that is, the government --- under a
duty to hold it on behalf of the people --- most
importantly, for benefit of the future generation
(Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. V. Minguel
Martins (2009)3 SCC 571)

23.  Anyone who uses natural resources ---
sustainable use of them.
 3 imp. Features:
a) Natural resources subject of public trust can
be allowed to be exploited for public interest
or benefit of people in general.
b) These resources --- not salable --- nor State
State have any ownership over them.
c) These resources --- protected --- and not
fully exhausted --- use for future generation.

24.  M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)1 SCC 388
(very imp. Case --- discussed earlier)
 Landmark judgement on public trust doctrine
 Spon Motel Ltd. --- a private Co. ---- former
Minister Kamal Nath --- built a motel at river
Beas between Kulu and Manali in H.P --- Co.
taken illegal possession of major portion of
forest land ---- which the then Minister Kamal
Nath regularised granted lease of that land to
the Co --- flow of river Beas was diverted by
use of bull-dozers for constructing the

25. Motel and to protect it from flood --- PIL filed in
SC --- SC applied polluter pays rule and public
trust rule --- held --- power under Art. 32 donot
restrict the Court and can award damages in a
PIL writ petition --- also, held --- in addition to
damages in victims --- persons guilty of causing
pollution can also be held liable for examplary
damages for violation of rule of public trust ---
SC imposed on respondent a fine of ten lakh
rupees as examplary damage for ecological
restoration.

26.  Justice Kuldeep Singh gave the judgment ---
and applied the same principle given by the
Californian Court --- in the historic Mono Lake
case (natural resource like river is not owned
by the State which is only a trustee of it and
the beneficiaries are the people who use the
river water)
 In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath --- SC ---
issued follg. Imp. Directions:
1) Doctrine of public trust --- applicable only in
environment related cases.
2) The licence/ lease granted to Spon Co. Ltd. -
-- cancelled
3) Expenses incurred on restoration of

27. forest land to its original natural form shall be
borne by the Co.
4) Expenses for demolition of the motel and
restoring the river bed to its original form ---
borne by the motel
5) Govt. of H.P. --- take back the land from the
motel and initiate steps to bring it in its original
natural form
6) The management of the motel co. to show
cause as to why criminal proceedings should
not be instituted against them.

28.  In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. V. Radhey Shyam
Sahu --- SC --- held --- the Mahapalika ---
liable for violation of duties as trustee of the
public park --- In this case --- the Mahapalika
allowed construction of air-conditioned
underground shopping complex below the
park --- permission for construction was
granted without inviting any tenders and
without obtaining a clearance report from the
Pollution Control Board. ---- SC --- held ----
Mahapalika was trustee for proper
management of the park --- thus destroying
the park --- violation of public

29. trust doctrine.
o In Intellectual Forum v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2006) 3 SCC 549 --- SC applied
doctrine of public trust and observed ---natural
resources which include lakes nad tanks are
held by the State as a trustee of the public
trust --- and can be disposed in a way that is
consistent with the nature of such a trust.
o Doctrine of public trust --- found judicial
recognition in Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd.
V. UOI ---- SC --- held --- air, water, land ,
forests, coastal zones, etc. --- valuable natural
resources.

30. 6) Doctrine of Strict and Absolute Liability:
o STRICT LIABILITY (OR LIABILITY
WITHOUT FAULT) ---- Rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher:
 any person who keeps hazardous substances
on his premises will be held responsible if
such substances escape the premises and
causes any damage.
 The person who for his own purpose brings
on his land and collects and keeps there
anything likely to do a mischief if it escapes ---
must keep it at his own peril, and if he does
not do so, is prima-facie liable for all the
damage --- which is the natural consequence
of its escape.

31.  Kind of liability under which a person is
legally responsible for the consequences
flowing from an activity even in the absence of
fault or criminal intent on the part of the
defendant.
 a legal doctrine that holds a party (defendant)
responsible for its actions, without the plaintiff
having to prove the negligence or fault on the
part of defendant.

32.  In Rylands v. Fletcher --- Fletcher had a mill
on his land, and to power the mill, Fletcher
built a reservoir on his land. Due to some
accident, the water from the reservoir flooded
the coal mines owned by Rylands.
Subsequently, Rylands filed a suit against
Fletcher. The Court held that the defendant
built the reservoir at his risk, and in course of
it, if any accident happens then the defendant
will be liable for the accident and escape of
the material.

33.  The person from whose property such
substance escaped will be held accountable
even when he hasn’t been negligent in
keeping the substance in his premises.
 The liability is imposed on him not because
there is any negligence on his part, but the
substance kept on his premises is hazardous
and dangerous.
 Based on this judicial precedent, the concept
of strict liability came into being.

34.  Essentials of Strict Liability:
1) Dangerous Things
2) Escape of the dangerous thing
3) Non-natural use of land to make the
defendant liable. Like in Rylands vs.
Fletcher case, the water collected in the
reservoir was considered to be a non-natural
use of the land. Storage of water for
domestic use is considered to be natural
use. But storing water for the purpose of
energizing a mill was considered non-natural
by the Court.

35.  Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:
1) Act of God
2) Consent of the Plaintiff
3) Act of Third Party
4) Statutory Authority
5) Plaintiff’s Own Default
RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY:
o Genesis --- Shriram Food and Fertilizers gas
leak case, or Oleum gas leak case, or MC
Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086
o Took one year after the Bhopal gas leak case

36.  No fault liability --- which the wrong doer is not
provided with exceptions which are provided
in rule of strict liability.
 Where an enterprise is engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity, and harm results to anyone on
account of an accident in the operation of
such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity, is strictly and absolutely liable to
compensate all those who are affected by
the accident, and such liability is not
subject to any of the exceptions which
operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of
strict liability under the rule in Rylands vs
Fletcher.

37.  In Sriram Food and Fertilizers Case ---- In the
centre of a population of 200,000 people in the
area of Kirti Nagar, Shriram’s Food and Fertiliser
factory, Delhi was situated, which produced
products like hard technical oil and glycerin soaps.
 M.C. Mehta, a social activist lawyer, submitted
before the Supreme Court a writ petition seeking
an order for closure and relocation of the Shriram
Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant to an
area where no real danger to the people’s health
and security will exist. Pending disposal of the
petition, the Supreme Court allowed the plant to
restart its capacity and work.
 On 4 and 6 December 1985, Oleum gas leaked
from one of its units during the pending lawsuit,
causing substantial harm to local residents as a
result of the plant’s gas leakage.

38.  A lawyer from Tis Hazari Court --- also dies
due to inhalation of the toxic gases.
 SC --- held --- industry --- liable for damages
on account of absolute liability --- to eliminate
toxic and hazardous factories could not be
followed because they still contribute to
improving the quality of life --- permanent
factory closure would result in the
unemployment --- However, SC observed ---
quantum of compensation must be corelated
to the magnitude and gravity of the harm
caused --- and even examplary damages may
be ordered.

39. BHOPAL GAS LEAK TRAGEGY, or,
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION LTD.
V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1990 SC 273, or
Bhopal gas leak tragedy case
 Absolute liability
 took place between the night of 2nd and 3rd
December, 1984. Leakage of ‘Methyl Isocyanate’
poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company
in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major
disaster.
 Over three thousand people lost their lives.

40. --- heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. A
case was filed in the American New York District
Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal
was a branch of the US based Union Carbide
Company --- The case was dismissed owing to
no jurisdiction. The Government of India
enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act, 1985 and
sued the company for damages on behalf of the
victims --- The court applying the principle of
Absolute Liability held the company liable and
ordered it to pay compensation to victims.

41. Difference between Strict and
Absolute Liability:
 In strict liability, any person can be made liable ---
in absolute liability, only an enterprise can be
made liable (commercial objective).
 In strict liability --- escape of a dangerous thing is
necessary, whereas, in absolute liability, an
enterprise can be made responsible even without
an escape.
 Certain exceptions are available to a person in
strict liability --- no defences available in absolute
liability.