Introduction:

Tortum, the Latin word for tort in the literal sense means “To Twist”
and Tort is ‘a twist’ of actions which lead to a civil wrong. The Law of
Torts, the cleaner of all the mess1, the civil law, is a law which came
into theories even much before The French Revolution2. The Law
protects individuals as well as masses from ‘Legal Injuries’. These
injuries do not just restrict to mere physical injuries but also include
economic, reputational or emotional injuries. From negligence to
absolute liability, the tort law provides us with various principles.
Among these principles, today we also talk about the newly existent
“Toxic Tort”3 that deals with the environmental pollution. Prior to
1970, when there was no Environmental Protection Act, the legal
system relied partially on the tort law to right the environmental
wrongs.

People have long asserted that the separate environmental laws give
importance to masses and that they contribute to the plight of poor
and racial minorities4 but most of such enactments have,
unfortunately, not resulted in prevention of environmental
degradation. At this point, the Law of Torts plays the ‘gap filling’ role5
and this raises a critical and evolving question in today’s system- the
overlap between Law of Torts and the Environmental Law. The tort
laws and laws for the environment do not always have same
objectives but both define a certain scope of common law remedies.
The project not only aims at the question of the overlap but also
refers to Indian cases where the tort law came into picture to protect
the masses from the environmental degradation.

1
Marshall S. Shapo, 1997 P.531
2
Thomas Carlyle, 1837
3
Jean Macchiaroli Eggen, 1995
4
Tseming Yang, 2002 P.607
5
Mark Latham, 2011 P.739

1
Environmental Law and the Law of Torts:

The Challenges to Define Environmental Law

The Environmental Laws are the common laws and actions impacting
environmental issues. These issues range from direct personal injury
faced by human beings to injuries that affect the natural habitat. The
injuries to natural habitat could mean anything, from destruction of
natural resources to day to day pollution. Modern day scholars argue
that no lines are drawn while defining the environmental law and a
simple law on arms and ammunition these days is termed as an
environmental law by environmentalists. This can be explained with
the help of a simple example; a law that limits the number of firearms
that can be carried is said to implicate environmental interests
because they say that it also relates to hunter’s ability to impact the
natural state of the environment6.

Another premise that is accepted by majority of people these days is

that the laws of environment are basically concerned with the
protection or correction of environmental harms, and issues harming
the personal lives should not fall under these laws. But what exactly
do they mean by this harm? A law preventing people/companies from
discharging chemical wastes into the water bodies in order to prevent
the aquatic life as well as the environment can fall under the ambit
of the environmental laws but something like a zoning law produces
similar effects but can it fall under this ambit?

The challenge to define environmental laws is overcome by the Law

of Torts when both work together to formulate a system that protects
the environment as well as the people from personal injuries or the
“Toxic Torts”.

6
Mark Latham, 2011 P.742

2
The Connection Between Environmental Law and the
Law of Torts

Over the years, the tort law has provided a remedy to cure the
environmental harms. General tort law principles have been applied
to remedy numerous types of harms to the environment. This has
occurred in areas where the harm is well defined and specific to
people and fits the traditional elements of tort principles in action.
Most of the cases that relate to environmental harm in India are
based on basic tortious principles and fall under the following
categories;

 Nuisance
 Negligence
 Trespass
 Strict/Absolute liability

According to Stephan Shavell “Tort law should be assessed in terms

of the contribution it can make to the control of environmental and
other risks.”7 If we read between the lines and study closely then we
can see the characteristics of the tort law which have a potential in
protecting the environment. The fact that tort law comes into picture
when there is a ‘damage’, we can also say that environmental
damage is a part of the same damage. Indian courts have played
exceptional role in applying principles of tort law in environmental
issues. The Supreme Court has interpreted the old principles of tort
law in a much broader way to overcome the environmental
challenges. Let us take examples of two major cases where we see
the overlap between the tort law and the environmental law.

7
www.manupatra.in

3
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Union Carbide Corporation v. Union
of India8

Union Carbide India Limited (Owned by Union Carbide) operated a

plant for manufacturing of pesticides in Bhopal. Around midnight on
3rd December 1984, methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas was accidentally
released from the plant. Around 5,00,000 people were exposed to the
gas and some other chemicals. More than 3500 deaths were
confirmed by the government officials of the state of Madhya
Pradesh. Many people and their following generations were
permanently disabled or were trapped by serious illness. Union
Carbide was sued by the government of India. This infamous case is
also called as “The Bhopal Gas Tragedy”.

The impact of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy was so powerful not only on
people’s lives but also on the environment as a whole. The effects of
the gas leak can still be witnessed in Bhopal’s atmosphere. This case
marked the enactment of environmental laws emerging from
principles of old school Law of Torts.

The Development of Environmental Torts - An Aftermath of

The Bhopal Tragedy9

When we talk about environment, we take into consideration the

entire ecosystem and it’s parts. From abiotic components to biotic
comoponents, environment comprises of everything. The Bhopal Gas
Tragedy raised the issue whether the company Union Carbide
Corporation was absolutely liable for it’s acts that lead to destruction
of environment and hence people. It also raised the issue whether
the company was negligent towards the environment or not.

8
1988, MPLJ 540
9
Raagya P. Zadu, 2016

4
The principles of absolute liability and negligence are part of the basic
principles of the Law of Torts and the application of these principles
were not just restricted to people but to environment as a whole.

Following the impact of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the government of

India enacted the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 under the
article 253 of the constitution of India. It is astonishing to know that
before 1984, India did not have any separate legislations for
environment and the Law of Torts was the ultimate resolution for all
environmental disputes. Despite the enactment of a seven scheduled
act, the Bhopal Tragedy case was argumented upon on the basis of
old school tort law principles. This clearly implied that the loopholes
of the environmental laws were filled by the Law of Torts.

5
M.C Mehta v. Union of India10

Despite the enactment of the environmental laws after the Bhopal

Gas Tragedy, the nation witnessed yet another major case of the
‘Environmental Torts’. A subsidiary of the company Delhi Clothes Mill
Limited, named Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry manufactured
fertilizers which required dangerous chemical substances to be
prepared. In December 1985, large amounts of oleum gas leaked
from one of the units in the heart of Delhi which resulted in the death
of several persons. The leakage, as per the reports, was due to a
human error and it created a fear among the people living nearby.

Mahesh Chandra Mehta, a lawyer by profession and a committed

environmentalist filed a PIL in the supreme court to claim
compensation for the losses caused.

An Aftermath of the Case

The case of MC Mehta was quite similar though less catastrophic than
the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The case involved destruction of
environment and hence it’s part that is human beings, due to the
negligence of a worker, as per the reports. This case clearly followed
the principles of absolute liability and negligence on the worker’s part.

10
1987 SCR (1) 819

6
Why Torts and Environmental Laws Should be
Connected? – An Analysis

On mentioning the Law of Torts, the first thing that comes into mind
are the 4 essential elements11;

 A duty of care
 Breach of duty of care
 Causation which results in suffering/injury
 Damage/injury

From the Indian experiences and the cases cited, it can be inferred
that human beings are one of the primary reasons for the destruction
of the environment. Connecting to the 4 elements of the Law of Torts,
it can be said that the human beings as reasonable creatures owe a
duty of care to the nature or the environment they are a part of, when
a breach of duty is done on the part of any human being then it
causes a damage to the environment which ultimately harms the
other human beings.

In the cases of the Bhopal Tragedy as well as the MC Mehta case, the
ultimate harm to environment was the result of an activity which was
done by human for their gainful purpose. Not only in these two cases
but also in every other case where there is a risk to the environment,
the primary reason is always a gainful reason. From cutting trees to
building dams, the ever-increasing population must be met with its
ever-increasing needs and hence environment comes at cost.

The fear that the environmental laws fail to create among the people
is created by the Law of Torts and ultimately both the laws work
together to form the basis of modern day EPA.

11
John G. Fleming, 1967

7
Conclusion:

With advancement of technology, the demands of human beings will

keep on increasing. To protect this nature and the environment
people belong to, it must be seen that the laws are able to fulfil their
purpose without a counter challenge from the generation. The
traditional Law of Torts must be kept as the base of making the laws
relating to the environment as these laws need a backup and a set of
rules which have been well established. The environmental laws are
narrowed down version of the tort laws and hence differentiating
between these legislatures just increases the number of loopholes in
the system.

Human Beings are the soul part of this environment and the laws
dealing with them should be the laws dealing with them and the
nature. In order to protect the environment, people can be asked to
perform certain tasks which have a more moral aspect and ethical
validity than a legal basis. Environmental laws can be kept as it is but
the Law of Torts should always help form the base of them.