‘sustainable development’ as ‘development that meets the needs of the present generation without

compromising on the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.’ It means improving
the quality of human life while at the same time living in harmony with nature and maintaining the
carrying capacity of the life supporting ecosystem.
To be sustainable, development must possess both economic and ecological sustainability. The
concept of sustainable development indicates the way in which development planning should be
approached.
”Significantly, the Supreme Court recognized that environmental concerns are as important as
human rights concerns. It was said, “In fact, both are to be traced to Article 21 which deals with
the fundamental right to life and liberty. While environmental aspects concern “life”, human rights
aspects concern “liberty”. In our view, in the context of emerging jurisprudence relating to
environmental matters, - as is the case in matters relating to human rights, - it is the duty of this
Court to render justice by taking all aspects into consideration.”

The Precautionary Principle led to the evolution of the special principle of burden of proof
mentioned inVellore Citizens Welfare Forum. As per this special principle, the burden is on the
person wanting to change the status quo to show that the actions proposed will not have an
injurious effect, the presumption operating in favor of environmental protection. This concept of
‘reverse onus’ requires that the burden of proof for safety rests on the proponent of a technology
and not on the general public – a new technology should be considered dangerous unless
proved otherwise.

'If you make a mess, it's your duty to clean it up'- this is the main basis of this slogan
It's a principle in international environmental law where the polluting party pays for the damage
done to the natural environment.

The Supreme Court endorsed the Polluter Pays principle. It was said, “The Polluter Pays
Principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment
extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the
environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of
sustainable development.”
The Supreme Court held that as per the Polluter Pays principle “… once the activity carried on is
hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good
the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took
reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised on the very nature of the
activity carried on.”

And ordinarily, a Court confines itself to the facts at hand and does not delve into assumptions.1

1
Chanan Singh v. Registrar. Co-op Societies, AIR 1976 SC 1821, ¶¶ 6-7 (per V. R. Krishna Iyer J.)
This Court is of a strong opinion that institutional respects are to be maintained by the constitutional
Courts. Whenever there is a provision for an appeal under the statute, without exhausting the
remedies available under the statute, no writ petition can be entertained in a routine manner. Only
on exceptional circumstances, the remedy of appeal can be waived, if there is a gross injustice or if
there is a violation of fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India. Otherwise, all the
aggrieved persons from and out of the order passed by the original authority is bound to approach
the Appellate Authority. The Constitutional Courts cannot make an appeal provision as an empty
formality. Every Appellate Authority created under the statute to be trusted in normal circumstances
unless there is a specific allegation, which is substantiated in a writ proceedings. Thus, the
institutional functions and exhausting the appeal remedies by the aggrieved persons, are to be
enforced in all circumstances and writ proceedings can be entertained only on exceptional
circumstances. Rule is to prefer an appeal and entertaining a writ is only an exception. This being the
legal principles to be followed, this Court cannot entertain the writ petitions in a routine manner by
waiving the remedy of appeal provided under the statute.

When an effective alternative remedy is available, a writ petition cannot be maintaine

1. In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. DosuAardeshirBhiwandiwala and Ors.

MANU/SC/8250/2008 : (2009) 1 SCC 168, this Court had observed that:

is duty-bound to consider whether:

the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;

Hon’ble Apex Court recently in case of Commissioner of Income Tax

v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal[(2014) 1 SCC 603 Has held that when the
statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, the writ petition
should not be entertained ignoring statutory dispensation subject to certain
exceptions. The Hon’ble Apex Court further opined that non-entertainment of
petitions under the writ jurisdiction by the High Courts where efficacious or
alternative remedy is available, is a rule of self- imposed limitation. It is
essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of
law. The Hon..ble Apex Court has also opined that undoubtedly, it is within
the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India despite existence of an alternative remedy. However,
the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious
alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the
High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional
case warranting such interference or if there is sufficient grounds to invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed upon the
Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation which furthers the
interests of environment must be given a broader reading. (See Kishsore Lal
v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579, para
17).