A CASE STUDY ON VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM

vs UNION OF INDIA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO POLLUTERS

PAY PRINCIPLE
J.Sabitha1
J.Tamil selvi2
ABSTRACT

As we have confronted numerous ecological issues step by step and the corruption of
condition through the over the top contaminations caused by people and the auxiliary
segment. The vast majority of the modern industrial facility proprietors don't see a
change in natural conditions to be to their greatest advantage. Additionally this paper
manages a case "vellore Citizens welfare gathering versus association of India" which
states through receiving the polluter pays standard in India as a change over outright
risk guideline. This paper additionally depicts the enthusiasm of the industrialists on
natural exhaustion through the modern advancement and the positive sides of the
general improvement of the financial part. The economical improvement will be
likewise viewed as essential factor in this examination as everything ought to must be
utilized productively without making any harm nature. Likewise it will experience the
disciplines for contaminating nature and the idea of polluter pays Principle with
respect to the general public and materialness of it on the general population. The
sustainable development will be also regarded as important factor in this study as
every thing should have to be used efficiently without causing any damage to the
environment. Also it will go through the punishments for polluting the environment
and the concept of polluter pays Principle with regards to the society and applicability
of it on the public.
KEYWORDS:-
Environment, population, nature, development, pollution, damages.

1
2nd year, BA.LLB(HONS),Saveetha school of law,Saveetha university, jsabitha99@gmail.com

2
Assistant professor of law, Saveetha school of law,Saveetha university, tamiljudge@yahoo.com
INTRODUCTION :-
In the exchange and condition these are national government approaches which must
be settled upon at the global level. The objective is to keep decreasing government
intercession. In instances of natural contamination and corruption in creating nations,
an alternate variety of the polluter-pays standard rose concentrated fundamentally on
the need to give prompt remuneration to casualties of ecological mischief. Through
enactment and legal points of reference, various nations have made a commitment on
nearby governments to give immediate and provoke pay to the casualties of natural
damage.
These legal and authoritative reinterpretations of the polluter-pays rule hold states and
neighborhood governments mutually and severally at risk for the ecological harm
caused by private gatherings, enabling these open bodies to act in subrogation against
the individual polluters when conceivable. This variation of the polluter-pays
guideline by and large observes an essential part for neighborhood and focal
governments to give pay to casualties of natural mischief.
This practically subverts the rationale of the standard by recommending that the
essential objective is to give incite remuneration to the casualties of ecological
damage, and just optionally to exchange the misfortune through subrogation on the
mindful gatherings. This very extraordinary move far from the strict obligation
administration of the polluter-pays rule is roused by the need to make coordinate
money related motivations on neighborhood ecological organizations expanding their
motivators to participate in observing of exercises that make potential hazard for the
earth.
The intelligence of these changes lies in the possibility that neighborhood
governments react especially to dangers of suit and have the important managerial and
legitimate instruments for the successful observing of forthcoming polluters.
Monetary incomes vigorously compel the financial plans of these neighborhood
governments and ecological organizations and if held obligated for the immediate
remuneration of natural mischief, these elements confront a conceivably troublesome
deficit with both political and money related outcomes.
Aims:-
1. To study the impact of environmental pollution caused by the humans in the
environment.
2. To examine the impact of the vellore citizens welfare forum case vs union of
India in the environment pal pollution control.
HYPOTHESIS:-
NULL HYPOTHESIS:-
1. The environmental pollution is caused only by the industrialists and the
developing sector in the economy.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS:-
2. The environmental pollution is caused not only by the industrialists and the
developing sector in the economy.

METHODOLOGY:-
This paper deals with the descriptive methodology for a brief understanding of the
environmental pollution caused by the humans and the polluter pays principle. Also
with the secondary resources for the data specifications.

IMPACT OF THE CASE VELLORE CITIZENS VELLORE FORUM VS

UNION OF INDIA:-
Facts:-

 The petitioner- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a Public Interest

Litigation U/A 32 of Indian Constitution.
 Petition was filed against the large-scale pollution caused to River Palar due to
the discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries and other industries in the
State of Tamil Nadu. The water of River Palar is the main source of drinking
and bathing water for the surrounding people.
  Further, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore
found that nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land has become either totally
or partially unfit for cultivation.
 This is a leading case in which the Supreme Court critically analysed the
relationship between environment and development.

Issue:-
whether the tanneries should be allowed to continue to operate at the cost of lives of
lakhs of people.

Judgement:-
The Supreme Court inspecting the report conveyed its judgment trying all endeavors
to keep up a concordance amongst condition and improvement. The Court conceded
that these Tanneries in India are the major remote trade worker and furthermore gives
work to a few a great many individuals.
However, in the meantime, it decimates the earth and represents a wellbeing danger to
everybody. The court conveying its judgment for solicitors guided every one of the
Tanneries to store an entirety of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the workplace of Collector as
fine. The Court additionally coordinated the State of Tamil Nadu to grant Mr. M. C.
Mehta with a whole of Rs. 50,000 as thankfulness towards his endeavors for
insurance of Environment.
The Court for this situation additionally accentuated on the constitution of Green
Benches in India managing particularly with issues identifying with condition security
and furthermore for rapid and speedy transfer of ecological cases.
POWER OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE MEASURES TO
PROTECT AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENT:-

The Central Government have the ability to take every single such measure important
to protect and enhancing the nature of the earth and anticipating controlling and
lessening ecological contamination.

 Measures with respect to all or any of the following matters :-

1. Planning and execution of a nation-wide programme for the prevention, control

and abatement of environmental pollution.

2. Laying down standards for the quality of environment in its various aspects.

3. Laying down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants

from various sources.

4. Restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of

industries, operations or processes should not be carried out or should be carried
out subject to certain safeguards.

5. Laying down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which
may cause environmental pollution and remedial measures for such accidents.

6. Laying down procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous

substances.

7. Examination of such manufacturing processes, materials and substances as are

likely to cause environmental pollution.

8. Such other matters as the Central Government deems necessary or expedient for
the purpose of securing the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act

The legal frameworks under environmental protection:-

1. Public Interest Litigation 32
2. Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle
3. Sec 3(3) of EPA, 1986
4. Penalty Provisions of Water Act, 1974

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT WITH REGARDS TO ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION :-
Maintainable advancement could be an example of financial process inside which
assets are utilized to meet human needs while ensuring the earth all together that those
needs can meet not exclusively in the present, however likewise for the future ages to
come. In addition, there is a further spotlight on the present ages duty to upgrade the
future ages life by reestablishing the past biological community harmed and lessening
ecological contamination.
Ecological assurance suggests that the individuals intentionally ensure and sensibly
make utilization of regular assets and in the meantime they keep indigenous habitat
from contamination and devastation. In the mean time, condition security has the
significance of the general terms of a wide range of moves made by people keeping in
mind the end goal to illuminate the handy or potential natural issues :

which arrange the connection between the people and natural and guarantee a
manageable financial and social advancement. Controlling the natural contamination
came about because of creation and life action incorporate controlling the three
squanders clean and radioactive substances, clamor, vibration, rancidity and
electromagnetic radiation came about because of mechanical generation.

It also incorporates the contamination of unsafe gases, fluid, commotion caused by

transportation, sea shipping discharges, destructive and risky chemicals in modern and
rural generation and people groups living, smoke outflows, squander matter and waste
caused by urban life. Avoiding natural harm caused by the development and formative
exercises incorporates counteractive action of ecological contamination and
pulverization caused by extensive scale water conservancy, railroads, interstates, real
ports, air terminals, substantial modern activities and different tasks.

Assurance of regular habitat incorporates ensuring uncommon species and their living
condition, the characteristic history of particular locales topographical wonders and
scene. Plus, the substance of ecological assurance additionally incorporates urban and
country arranging, control of water and soil misfortune and in addition desertification,
woodland arranging, control of populace development and appropriation, objective
conveyance of creation powers. Ecological insurance has turned into the universes
governments and people groups basic activity and consequently the principle
assignments. Nations have created and declared a progression of natural assurance
laws and directions to guarantee its execution.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

PERSPECTIVE
The State's responsibility with regard to environmental protection has been laid down
under Article 48-A of our Constitution, which reads as follows- The State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wildlife of the country. Environmental protection is a fundamental duty of every
citizen of this country under Article 51-A(g) of our Constitution which reads as
follows - It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures. Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right
which reads as follows - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law. Article 48-A of the Constitution
comes under Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 51 A(g) of the
Constitution comes under Fundamental Duties. The State's responsibility with regard
to raising the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health
has been laid down under Article 47 of the Constitution which reads as follows - The
State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in
particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption
except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious
to health.

ESTABLISHED NORMS OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Norms are general legal principles that are widely accepted. This acceptance is
evidenced in a number of ways, such as international agreements, national legislation,
domestic and international judicial decisions and scholarly writings.
The leading norms in the field of international environmental law are addressed
below:
1) Foremost among these norms is principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm
Declaration on the Human Environment. Principle 27 maintains that ̳States
have, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations and the principles
of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant
to their own environmental policies and the responsibility to ensure that
activities within their areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
2) national jurisdiction.‘195
3) Another widely shared norm is the duty of a state to notify and consult with
other states when it undertakes on operation that is likely to harm
neighbouring countries, environments, such as the construction of a power
plant, which may impair air or water quality in downwind or downstream
states.
4) Over and above the duty to notify and consult, a relatively new norm has
emerged whereby states are expected to monitor and assess specific
environmental conditions domestically and disclose these conditions in a
report to an international agency or international executive body created by an
international agreements and authorized by the parties to the agreement to
collect and publish such information.
CONCLUSION:-
The possibility that polluters ought to be made to pay for harms that they cause to the
wellbeing and property of others is sound and, in a free society in light of moral duty,
ought to be the controlling guideline for all ecological arrangement.
A direct translation of the polluter pays guideline would propose that if the utilization
or creation exercises of one gathering of customers or makers effectually affect others
then the culprits of the damages ought to be held at risk for the harm. Shockingly, the
polluter pays rule that is at present controlling open arrangement appears to have been
characterized simply by the impulses of approach producers and backing gatherings.
The possibility that ecological issues are basically about relational clashes over the
utilization of property has been removed totally from the condition. The polluter pays
guideline would feature the way that there is no strain between freedom, financial
effectiveness, and private property from one perspective and sound ecological
stewardship on the other. Ecological issues have a tendency to emerge when
individuals are permitted to force costs on others by debasing other individuals'
property or by utilizing property that is unowned.
A property-rights-based polluter pays standard, if actualized, would tackle a
significant number of these issues. It would guarantee that current property rights are
upheld. It would give principled direction to the privatization of at present unowned
assets by courts and councils. At long last, by plainly distinguishing the target, it
would make it considerably less demanding for administrators and adjudicators of
debate to move the correct way.
REFERENCE :-

1. Geetanjoy Sahu, ‘Implications of Indian Supreme Court’s Innovations for

Environmental Jurisprudence’, 4/1 Law, Environment and Development
Journal (2008), available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/ 08001.pdf.
2. All instances of the term ‘the Court’ refer to the Supreme Court of India.
3. M. C. Mehta and Others v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965.
4. Rylands v. Fletcher is a landmark English case in which the Court of the
Exchequer Chamber first applied the doctrine of strict liability for inherently
dangerous activities.
5. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Bichhr village
industrial pollution case), AIR 1996 (3) SCC 212. under the provisions of
Environment Protection Act. However, the assessment of compensation, its
payment and the remedial measures have still not been complied with.
6. The Court directions in the Ganga river pollution
7. Sanjay Parikh, Development of Environmental Law: A Critical Appraisal
(Paper presented at the National Consultation on Critiquing Judicial Trends on
Environmental Law organised by the Human Rights Law Network in New
Delhi, from 23 to 24 February 2008).
8. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115.
9. Praveen Singh, ‘Bridging the Ganga Action Plan: Monitoring failure at
Kanpur’, XLI/7 Economic and Political Weekly 590,592 (2006).
10. S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1997 (2) SCC87.
11. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 (1) SCC 388. 11 See Parikh, note 6
above.
12. Justice S.P. Bharucha’s Inaugural lecture at Supreme Court Bar Association’s
Golden Jubilee’s Lecture Series (2001) on Supreme Court on Public Interest
Litigation.
13. M. K. Ramesh, ‘Environmental Justice: Courts and Beyond’, 3/1 Indian
 Journal of Environmental Law 20, 37 (2002).
14. P. Leelakrishna, Environmental Law in India (New Delhi: LexisNexis, 2005).
15. O.P. Dwivedi, India’s Environmental Policies, Programmes and Stewardship
(Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1997). See also Kuldeep Mathur,
Battling for Clean Environment: Supreme Court, Technocrats and Popular
Politics in India (New Delhi: Working Paper, Doc. No. JNU/ CSLG/WP/03-01,
2001).
16. Armin Rosencranz, Edward Boenig and Brinda Dutta, The Godavarman Case:
The Indian Supreme Court’s Breach of Constitutional Boundaries in
Managing India’s Forests (Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute,
2007).
17. Marc Galanter, ‘Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the
Limits of Legal Change’, 9/1 Law and Society Review 95, 160 (1974).
18. Songer and R.S. Sheehan, ‘Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs
in the United States Courts of Appeals’, 36/1 American Journal of Political
Science 235, 258 (1992).
19. Sanjay Upadhyay and Videh Upadhyay, Handbook on Environmental Law:
Forest Laws, Wild Life Laws and the Environment (New Delhi: LexisNexis,
Volume 1, 2002).
20. Atiyah Curmally, ‘Environmental Governance and Regulation in India’, in
Sebastian Morris ed., India Infrastructure Report-2002: Governance Issues for
Commercialisation 96 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002).