ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

1. The concept of environment protection is borrowed from United Nations Conference

on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June 1972.
2. Human environment issues affect both living and non-living.
3. Article 48-A (Part IV-A) of the Constitution the State shall endeavor to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
4. The Environment Protection Act is Act 29 of 1986 and got Presidents assent on 23rd
March 1986.
5. The Environment Protection Act came into force on 19th November 1986.
6. The Indian Judiciary is Pro-environment. A pro-environment interpretation remarked by
the Supreme Court in Sarika Case. The Judge said that he placed Government above big
business, individual liberty above government and environment above all.
7. Interpretation regarding to provisions of environment protection in V. Shankar Reddy
v/s State of Andhra.
8. The principle of purposive interpretation of the environment provisions has been
recognized by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust Case.
9. An Act to provide for the protection and improvement of environment and for matters
connected therewith is in Preamble.
10. The Environment Protection Act has the following objectives:
a. Protection of Environment.
b. Improvement of environment.
c. Prevention of hazards – to human beings and other living creatures including plants
and property.
11. The Environment Protection Act is regarded as protective and progressive socio-
economic enactment.
12. It has total 26 sections, divided into four chapters.
13. The Act put possible deterrent control over the polluters of environment by making
them liable to penal code.
14. The jurisdiction of civil court is ousted in accordance with Section 22 of the Environment
Protection Act, 1986.
15. Article 51-A(g) in Part IV-A containing fundamental duties says that ‘it shall be the duty
of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment and to
safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
16. By virtue of Article 21 of the Constitution all have a right to healthy, environmental
pollution free life and personal liberty.
17. In T. Damodar Rao v/s the Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, has
held that Article 48-A of the Constitution imposes an obligation on the Government and
courts to protect the environment.

1
18. The apex court in Murli S. Deora v/s Union of India, clarified that the Fundamental
Rights enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution inter alia provides that no one shall be
deprived of his life without due process of law – relating to smoking.
19. This Act is a special law and extends to the whole of India (all States and Union
Territories).
20. The section 2 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides the definition of
various terms used in the Act.
21. Environment includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among
and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants and
micro-organisms and property.
22. Environmental pollutant means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such
concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment.
23. Environment pollution means the presence in the environment of any environmental
pollutant. Section 2(c).
24. Hazardous substance means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its
chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human
beings and other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or environment.
Section 2(e).
25. Occupier in relation to any factory or premises, means a person who has control over
the affairs of the factory or the premises and includes, in relation to any substance, the
person in possession of the substance.
26. Environment means sum total of all conditions and influences that affect the
development of life of all organism – Dr. T. N. Khoshoo.
27. According to United States Council on Environment quality, Environment means man’s
total environment system including not only the biosphere, but also his interactions with
his natural and man-made surroundings.
28. Case of storage of chlorine for disinfection of drinking water in A. Suseela and others
v/s Union of India and others.
29. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government shall have the power to
take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting
and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating
environmental pollution.
30. The power to carry out investigation and research relating to environmental pollution is
conferred on Central Government.
31. Section 6: Rules to regulate environmental pollution.
1. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules in
respect of all or any of the matters referred to in section 3.
2. In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
a. the standards of quality of air, water or soil for various areas and purposes;

2
 b. the maximum allowable limits of concentration of various environmental
pollutants (including noise) for different areas;
c. the procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances;
d. the prohibition and restrictions on the handling of hazardous substances in
different areas;
e. the prohibition and restrictions on the location of industries and the carrying
on of processes and operations in different areas;
f. the procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may
cause environmental pollution and for providing for remedial measures for such
accidents.
32. Section 7: No person carrying on any industry, operation or process shall discharge or
emit or permit to be discharged or emitted any environmental pollutant in excess or
such standards as may be prescribed.
33. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1998, S.C. 617) the Bhure Lal Committee was
established for Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for the
National Capital Region consisting of Shri Bhure Lal.
34. In D. K. Joshi v/s Chief Secretary, State of U. P. and others [1999 (9) SCC 578] where
guidelines were given for supply of non-contaminated matter by inhabitant of Agra
town had filed the writ petition in 1992 alleging that the drinking water was highly
polluted and contaminated and not fit for consumption.
35. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1992, S.C. 382) a PIL was filed for information
films about environment protection information to be spread in all national and
regional languages.
36. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2000, (9) S.C.C. 411) direction was given to
Central Government for to generate the environment awareness to citizens who
were not aware of the importance of the environment and dangerous impact of the
degradation.
37. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2000, (2) S.C.C. 293) Indian Council for Enviro
Legal Action v/s Union of India, M. C. Mehta appearing in person drew the attention of
the supreme court to the need for representation of non-governmental organization
in the National Environment Authority set up by the Coastal States by special
notifications.
38. Restriction can be imposed on use of loud-speakers in Moulana Mufti Syed Md.
Noorur Rehman Barkat and other v/s State of West Bengal and others. It declared that
Azan was certainly an essential and integral part of Islam but use of microphone and
loud speaker are not an essential and integral part of religion.
39. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chittiprolu Venkateshwarlu v/s
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, held the High Court under
Article 226 of the constitution cannot sit in appeal over the expert bodies and give its
opinion unless the Appellate Authority fails to discharge its duty.

3
40. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2001, (9) S.C.C. 235) Taj Trapezium Pollution
Case ordered the closure of brick kilns within 20 Kms radius of Taj Mahal with certain
directions.
41. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2002, (4) S.C.C. 356) fixed the deadline 31-1-
2002 regarded phasing out of non-CNG buses plying in the territory of National
Capital Region.
42. One of the principles underlying environmental law is that of sustainable
development. This principle requires such development to take place which is
ecologically sustainable.
43. The two essential features of sustainable development are:
a. The precautionary principle.
b. Polluters Pay Principle.
44. Applicability of Precautionary Principle was in M. Stalin and others v/s Chairperson
Bhimavaram Muncipal Council and others [ILR 2001 (2) A.P. 308] held that
construction of slaughter house should not be allowed which causes large scale
pollution. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2001, S.C.W. 2354) directed the Agra
Nagar Nigam to close down a slaughter house at Nagla Mewat near Taj Mahal.
Prevention is better than cure.
45. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2000, S.C.C. 3052) Agricultural land is not
similar to the land, where industries are situated. Normally no construction is
permitted on agricultural land if it is less than a hectare and if it’s more than a hectare
only a fraction of the same can be used for construction.
46. Indiscriminate mining of lime stone is environment hazard in Kimri Devi v/s State of
Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1988 H.P. 4), held that the indiscriminate mining of lime-stone
is causing gross damage to hills and also blasting for lime stone extraction.
47. Due to lack of scientific knowledge, it has become inevitable to adopt the
precautionary principle. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of
environment harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least
environmentally harmful activity.
48. In M. C. Mehta and Shriram Foods and Fertilizers (AIR 1987, S.C. 965) observed that
there should be a right of regular appeal to the Supreme Court, that is an appeal be
incorporated in the relevant statutes.
49. Narmada Bachao Andolan etc. v/s Union of India and others, (AIR 2000, S. C. 3751), it
was held that the presumption that construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam will result in
ecological imbalance is not correct.
50. The Madras high court in L. Krishnan v/s state of Tamil Nadu 2005 (4) CTC., has ruled
that since tanks, ponds and lakes have been used by people for collecting water for
use of various purposes, its encroachment to be removed, because it would have
adverse effect on people.
51. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2004 S.C. 4016) Badkal lake and suraj kund –
mining activity to be banned. Explosives were used for mining operation on Badkal

4
 Lake, Suraj Kund and also Aravalli hills. It was unscientific mining and therefore
hazadous.
52. Construction without obtaining requisite environmental clearance in T. N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India, where land earmarked for construction
of hotels, convention centres, etc. Delhi Development Authority allotted land for the
purpose but clearance was not given by Ministry of Environment and Forests.
53. The State Pollution Control Board has the power to prescribe standards in Akhil
Bharat Goseva Sangh v/s State of A.P. These standards can be higher than those in
Environment (Protection) rules.
54. In judicial review of environment matter the doctrine of proportionality has to be
applied as dictated by the Supreme Court in Lafarge Uranium Mining Pvt. Ltd. v/s
Union of India and others.
55. Under section 4 the Central Government may appoint officers with such designation
as it thinks fit for the purpose of this Act and entrust them with powers and functions
under this Act.
The Officers shall be subject to the general control of:
1. The Central Government or
2. The authority or authorities constituted under sub-section (3) of section 3 or
3. Any other authority.
56. The powers under this Act is that the Central Government may issue directions in
writing under section 5 to direct:
a. The closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry operation or process;
b. Stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other services.
57. Oral direction has no validity and is impermissible under section 5.
a. These direction must be reasonable, not arbitrary,
b. where complete prohibition is made there the Government can grant exemption
to a specified industry,
c. grant lease declared to be void as causing destruction,
d. right to carry on trade is not absolute,
e. order of pollution control board to close down industry when not sustainable,
f. Hydro power project environment issues and religious sentiments.
58. Section 5A: Any person aggrieved by any direction issued under section 5 on or after
the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 may file an appeal to
the National Green Tribunal established under section 3 of the National Green
Tribunal Act 2010, in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
59. Under Section 6 the Central Government can frame rules to regulate environment
pollution:
a. Standards of quality of air, water, or soil for various areas and purposes.
b. Maximum allowable limits of concentration of various environmental pollutants for
different areas.
c. The procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances.

5
 d. The prohibition and restrictions on the handling of hazardous substances in different
areas.
e. The prohibition and restrictions on the location of industries and the carrying on of
processes and operations in different areas.
f. The procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause
environmental pollution and for providing for remedial measures for such accidents.
60. In V. Lakshmipathy v/s State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court directed the
operation of industrial units in land earmarked as residential areas in the development
plan to be stopped which was detrimental to health. It claimed that the right to life
inherent in Article 21 of the constitution of India contemplates qualitative life which
is possible only in an environment of quality.
61. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1988 S.C. 1115) the Supreme Court issued
direction to the authorities to control and prevent the pollution of Ganga water at
Kanpur.
62. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1991 (2) S.C. 137) the Supreme Court held that
the motor vehicles constitute the main contributing factor of pollution.
63. Persons handling hazardous substance are bound to follow the procedures and
observe the safeguards.
64. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1988 S.C. 1037) the Supreme Court held that a
tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to
continue to be in the exercise for the adverse effect on the public at large.
65. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1988 S.C. 1037) (Oleum Gas Leak Case) the
Supreme Court issued the environmental victim entitled to compensation under
Article 32.
66. Section 10 grants powers of entry and inspection for:
a. The purpose of performing any of the functions of the Central Government
entrusted to him;
b. The purpose of determining whether and if so in what manner any rules made or
any notice given, order, direction served under this Act is being or has been
complied with’
c. For the purpose of examining and testing any equipment, industrial plant, record,
register, document or any other material object or for conducting a search of any
building in which he has a reason to believe that an offence under this Act, etc.
67. Section 11 speaks of power to take samples and procedure to be followed while
taking the samples. It states that sample of air, water, soil, other substances can be
taken for checking. The analysis of the sample is not admissible in evidence in any
legal proceeding.
The process for the same is:
a. Serve a notice.
b. Take sample in presence of occupier or his agent.

6
 c. Put it in containers marked and sealed and signed by both parties (sample taker and
occupier),
d. Send without delay to laboratory established or recognized by the central
Government under Section 12.
68. Under section 12 the Central Government has power to establish one or more
environmental laboratories and recognize one or more laboratories or institutes as
environmental laboratories and make rules.
The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules
specifying—
a. the functions of the environmental laboratory;
b. the procedure for the submission to the said laboratory of samples of air, water,
soil or other substance for analysis or tests, the form of the laboratory report
thereon and the fees payable for such report;
c. such other matters as may be necessary or expedient to enable that laboratory to
carry out its functions.
69. Any one failing to comply with or goes against the provisions of this Act can be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine
which may extend to one lakh rupees of with both.
70. In M. C. Mehta v/s Kamal Nath and others (AIR 2000 S.C. 1997) the Supreme Court
held that pollution is a civil wrong. It is a tort committed against the community as a
whole. The person causing pollution must pay damages.
71. Under section 14: Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government
Analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under
this Act
72. Offences against companies dealt with in section 16.
73. On a number of occasions the Supreme Court passed strictures that while adjudicating
environment matters the court should not deal with prosecution for offences in a
casual manner in water pollution of river Gomti the court has no justification for
ignoring the seriousness of environmental subject – U.P. Pollution Control Board v/s
Ms Mohan Meakings Ltd. and others.
74. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v/s Union of India and others explained the
‘precautionary principle’ and polluters pay principle.
75. In Deepak Nitrate Ltd v/s State of Gujarat and others the Supreme Court has held that
‘polluter to pay’ principle has to be practical, simple and easy in application.
76. Section 19: No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by Central Government or other authority authorized on its behalf
and any person who has given notice of not less than 60 days in prescribed manner
of alleged offence.
77. Section 24 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is regarded as the ‘non-
obstante’ clause. Meaning it shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act.

7
78. In Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugam Chand Aggarwal alias Bhagatji v/s Government of
N.C.T. of Delhi and others, it was declared that noise pollution is a nuisance. A public
litigation was filed seeking prohibition on the use of high sounding fireworks and other
blaring sound producing devices thus resulting in pollution of sound. It was also
alleged that indiscriminate use of loud speakers, noise pollution has become a routine
affair causing physical as well as mental hazard to citizens of the locality.
79. Section 268 of Indian Penal Code defines the term public nuisance.
80. In K. K. R. Majestice Colony Welfare Association and Others, (Right to Religion and
noise pollution) and has held that undisputedly no religion prescribed that prayers
should be performed for disturbing the peace of others and so prayers do not need
loudspeakers or beating drums.
81. The Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000 on ten states for ignoring
environment and not complying a 12 year old Courts notice for compulsory
environment education in schools and colleges.
82. Part IV-A of the Constitution which consists of Article 51-A was incorporated by the
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures.
83. Article 51-A was incorporated by the constitution (42nd Amendment), 1976.
84. Prior to 42nd amendment there was no specific provision for protection of
environment = true.
85. Constitution provides that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect the
natural assets concerning not only human being but also all living creatures including
the wild life.
86. These fundamental duties are not enforceable by writ of mandamus.
87. Article 51-A (g) of the Constitution are statutory duties and shall be enforceable by
law.
88. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (1983 (1) S.C.C. 471), has held that under Article 51-
A (g) it is the duty of the Central Government to introduce compulsory teaching of
lessons at least for one hour in a week on protection and improvement of natural
environment in all the educational institutions. Text books on the subject be given
free of cost.
89. Article 51-A (g) provides that “to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures”.
90. Directive Principles of State Policy provide section 48-A of the Constitution for
protection of ecology and environment pollution.
91. Article 48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests
and wild life The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country

8
92. The directive principles have a great value for they lay down that our ideal is economic
democracy.
93. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India, while relying on Article 48-A of the Constitution
directed to the Central Government and the State Government and various local
bodies and Boards under various statutes to take appropriate measures for the
prevention and control of pollution of water.
94. The status of directive principles and fundamental rights was discussed in
Unnikrishnan v/s State of A.P. The children below 14 years of age to be provided free
education.
95. In case of any violation of a fundamental right, even as regards environment
protection any person can resort to Article 32 (Supreme Court) and 226 for
appropriate remedy.
96. The Supreme Court permits the public interest litigation or social interest litigation at
the instance of ‘public spirited citizens’.
97. ‘Public interest litigation’ and ‘representative proceedings’ is present Constitutional
jurisprudence.
98. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India, the victims of the gas leak (Shriram Foods and
Fertilizers) were heard and successful in claiming damages by means of public interest
litigation.
99. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1988, S.C. 2217), where the Supreme Court
issued direction for the enforcement of the statutory provisions pertaining to the
prevention of nuisance caused by the pollution of Ganga.
100. Excessive utilization, deflation and deterioration of land are sufficient to cause
ecological imbalance by human acts.
101. Courts in India have opened the doors for public spirited citizens to raise the
questions concerning the environment protection and likely to cause disturbance to
ecological balance.
102. High Court in L. K. Koolwal v/s State of Rajasthan, observed that the maintenance of
health, preservation of sanitation and environment falls within the ambit of Article
21 of the Constitution as it adversely affects the life of people and reducing the life of
citizens because of hazard created and if unchecked.
103. The Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1987 S.C. 965), has held
that it was not desirable to adopt a policy of not having any chemical or other
hazardous industries on the ground that they pose risk to the people.
104. The mechanism of public interest can be misused for private motive or political gain.
105. Public interest litigation is not meant to be a weapon to challenge the economic
policy of the Government and doing so would be abuse of process of Court – BALCO
Employees Union v/s Union of India.
106. The judiciary has been assigned the role as a guardian of the Constitution.
107. To protect the Constitutional rights, Human rights and Environmental rights the
Supreme Court should adopt activist’s role called Judicial Activism.

9
108. Due to several judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, now the right to get free air,
water, etc has been included in the guarantee ensued in Article 21 of the Constitution.
109. The field of environmental litigation in India shows the concern of the Courts in
finding out effective and proper remedies for environmental pollution.
110. Protection of the environment is not only the duty of the citizens but is also the
obligation of the State and all other State organs including the Courts.
111. As a result of judicial activism the right to pollution free environment has been
included under Article 21 of the Constitution, i.e. right to personal liberty and life, and
this right to environment has been given the status Article 141 of the Constitution.
112. To check the industrial pollution the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro Legal
Action v/s Union of India, passed the following direction “The Central Pollution Board
and Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board shall jointly prepare a scheme of
Action for curtailing the industrial pollution and for disposal of industrial waste as also
for reclaiming the polluted lands and the polluted water supply.
113. To check vehicular pollution in Delhi, in M. C. Mehta v/s union of India (AIR 1998 S. C.
2963) the court passed various directions.
114. The courts are under judicial obligation, to maintain balance between the
environment interest and the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or
business envisaged under Article 19(1)(g).
115. In T. N. Godavarman Thirimmulped v/s Union of India, the Supreme Court said that
the natural resources are the assets of the entire nation and it is the obligation of all
concerned including the Union Government to conserve and not waste these
resources.
116. There is an unbreakable link between Article 21 and environment.
117. Article 21 says that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law”. Therefore this Article 21 includes the
right to pollution free air and water. The Supreme Court held that the right to life is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of
enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full and complete enjoyment of life.
118. Environmental pollution (Air, water, etc) is violation of Article 21.
119. The Supreme Court declared that vehicular pollution beyond the permissible limit
violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
120. The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v/s Union of India submitted the
principles ‘the precautionary principle’ and ‘polluters pay principle’.
121. The absolute liability for harm to the environment and extending not only to
compensate the victim of pollution but also of restoring the environment degradation
is polluters pay principle.
122. The precautionary principle is based on the formulae that it is better to err on the
side of caution and prevent environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to
choose the least environmentally harmful activity.

10
123. The polluters pay liability is an absolute liability. – All India Skin and Hide Tamers and
Merchant Association v/s the Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of
Compensation) Authority and others.
124. The precautionary principle’ and ‘polluters pay principle’ are part of the
Environmental law in India - Justice Kuldeep Singh in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum
v/s Union of India
125. In environmental cases the court, tribunal or appellate authority should consist of
judicial and technical experts has specialization in environmental law.
126. Vehicular pollution affects the human health.
a. Carbon Monoxide – heart disorders, nervous system, impairs oxygen carrying
capacity of blood.
b. Nitrogen oxide – respiratory tract irritation.
c. Lead – causes hypertension, impairs child development, nervous system
d. Ozone - irritates eyes, nose and throat and risk of asthma.
e. Hydro Carbons – causes coughing, drowsiness, and eye irritation.
127. The Ministry of Environment and Forests constituted a committee under the headship
of Mr. D. K. Biswas (Chairperson, Central Pollution Control Board) to suggest the
measures for bringing vehicular pollution to standard level.
128. In M. C. Mehta v/s Kumal Nath, has held that the environment pollution is tort
against the community and therefore a change in environment does not per se
violates any right under Article 21 of the Constitution especially when effective and
suitable measures are undertaken not only to preserve but to improve ecology and
environment. Since it is a tort the guilty person has to pay compensation for
restoration of the environment and ecology.
129. The Supreme Court has prohibited smoking in public places such as public offices,
court buildings, auditorium, health institutions, hospitals, educational institutions,
libraries, public conveyances like railway/buses/public transports.
130. In the case of Murli Deora v/s Union of India the Supreme Court opined that in any
case there is no reason to compel passive smokers/non-smokers to be helpless
victims of air pollution.
131. Tehri Dam Project – impact on Human Health. N. D. Jayal and another v/s Union of
India, it was held that right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21.
132. In all environment matters the Supreme Court and high courts have to make
reference to National Environment Appellate Authority.
133. Environmental matters are complex issues involving science, technology and ecology.

11
 THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986
_______________
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
_______________

SECTIONS CHAPTER I
Section 1 Short title, extent and commencement.
Section 2 Definitions.
CHAPTER II - GENERAL POWERS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Section 3 Power of Central Government to take measures to protect and improve environment.
Section 4 Appointment of officers and their powers and functions.
Section 5 Power to give directions. 5A – Appeal to National Tribunal
Section 6 Rules to regulate environmental pollution.
CHAPTER III - PREVENTION, CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION
Section 7 Persons carrying on industry, operations, etc., not to allow emission or discharge of
environmental pollutants in excess of the standards.
Section 8 Persons handling hazardous substances to comply with procedural safeguards.
Section 9 Furnishing of information to authorities and agencies in certain cases.
Section 10 Powers of entry and inspection.
Section 11 Power to take sample and procedure to be followed in connection therewith.
Section 12 Environmental laboratories.
Section 13 Government Analysts.
Section 14 Reports of Government Analysts.
Section 15 Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules, orders and
directions.
Section 16 Offences by companies.
Section 17 Offences by Government Departments.
CHAPTER IV - MISCELLANEOUS
Section 18 Protection of action taken in good faith.
Section 19 Cognizance of offences.
Section 20 Information reports or returns.
Section 21 Members, officers and employees of the authority constituted under Section 3 to be
public servants.
Section 22 Bar of jurisdiction.
Section 23 Power to delegate.
Section 24 Effect of other laws.
Section 25 Power to make rules.
Section 26 Rules made under this Act to be laid before Parliament.

12
 M. C. MEHTA

1. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (1983 (1) S.C.C. 471), has held that under Article 51-A
(g) it is the duty of the Central Government to introduce compulsory teaching of
lessons at least for one hour in a week on protection and improvement of natural
environment in all the educational institutions. Text books on the subject be given free
of cost.
2. In M. C. Mehta and Shriram Foods and Fertilizers (AIR 1987, S.C. 965) observed that
there should be a right of regular appeal to the Supreme Court, that is an appeal be
incorporated in the relevant statutes.
3. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1987 S.C. 1086) the victims of the gas leak
(Shriram Foods and Fertilizers) were heard and successful in claiming damages by means
of public interest litigation.
4. The Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1987 S.C. 965), has held that
it was not desirable to adopt a policy of not having any chemical or other hazardous
industries on the ground that they pose risk to the people.
5. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1988 S.C. 1115) the Supreme Court issued
direction to the authorities to control and prevent the pollution of Ganga water at
Kanpur.
6. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1988, S.C. 2217), where the Supreme Court issued
direction for the enforcement of the statutory provisions pertaining to the prevention
of nuisance caused by the pollution of Ganga.
7. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1988 S.C. 1037) the Supreme Court held that a
tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to
continue to be in the exercise for the adverse effect on the public at large.
8. In M. C. Mehta v/s Union of India (AIR 1988 S. C. 1057), while relying on Article 48-A of
the Constitution directed to the Central Government and the State Government and
various local bodies and Boards under various statutes to take appropriate measures for
the prevention and control of pollution of water.
9. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1988 S.C. 1037) (Oleum Gas Leak Case) the
Supreme Court issued the environmental victim entitled to compensation under
Article 32.
10. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1991 (2) S.C. 137) the Supreme Court held that
the motor vehicles constitute the main contributing factor of pollution.
11. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1992, S.C. 382) a PIL was filed for information
films about environment protection information to be spread in all national and
regional languages.
12. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 1998, S.C. 617) the Bhure Lal Committee was
established for Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for the
National Capital Region consisting of Shri Bhure Lal.

13
13. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2000, (9) S.C.C. 411) direction was given to
Central Government for to generate the environment awareness to citizens who were
not aware of the importance of the environment and dangerous impact of the
degradation.
14. In M. C. Mehta v/s Kamal Nath and others (AIR 2000 S.C. 1997) the Supreme Court held
that pollution is a civil wrong. It is a tort committed against the community as a whole.
The person causing pollution must pay damages.
15. In M. C. Mehta v/s Kamal Nath (AIR 2000 S.C. 1997), has held that the environment
pollution is tort against the community and therefore a change in environment does not
per se violates any right under Article 21 of the Constitution especially when effective
and suitable measures are undertaken not only to preserve but to improve ecology and
environment. Since it is a tort the guilty person has to pay compensation for restoration
of the environment and ecology.
16. To check vehicular pollution in Delhi, in M. C. Mehta v/s union of India (AIR 1998 S. C.
2963) the court passed various directions.
17. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2000, (2) S.C.C. 293) Indian Council for Enviro
Legal Action v/s Union of India, M. C. Mehta appearing in person drew the attention of
the supreme court to the need for representation of non-governmental organization in
the National Environment Authority set up by the Coastal States by special notifications.
18. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2000, S.C.C. 3052) Agricultural land is not similar
to the land, where industries are situated. Normally no construction is permitted on
agricultural land if it is less than a hectare and if it’s more than a hectare only a fraction
of the same can be used for construction.
19. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2001, (9) S.C.C. 235) Taj Trapezium Pollution
Case ordered the closure of brick kilns within 20 Kms radius of Taj Mahal with certain
directions.
20. Applicability of Precautionary Principle was in M. Stalin and others v/s Chairperson
Bhimavaram Muncipal Council and others [ILR 2001 (2) A.P. 308] held that construction
of slaughter house should not be allowed which causes large scale pollution. In M. C.
Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2001, S.C.W. 2354) directed the Agra Nagar Nigam to
close down a slaughter house at Nagla Mewat near Taj Mahal. Prevention is better
than cure.
21. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2002, (4) S.C.C. 356) fixed the deadline 31-1-2002
regarded phasing out of non-CNG buses plying in the territory of National Capital
Region.
22. In M. C. Mehta and Union of India (AIR 2004 S.C. 4016) Badkal lake and Suraj Kund –
mining activity to be banned. Explosives were used for mining operation on Badkal
Lake, Suraj Kund and also Aravalli hills. It was unscientific mining and therefore
hazadous.

14