I

Chapter 4

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN INDIA

The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India added Article 48A and 51 A(g) which comes
under the Directive Principle of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties respectively .The
Supreme Court of lndia in Sac/1idana11d Pandey v. State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109
stated that the Court is bound to bear in mind the above said articles whenever a case related to
Environmental problem is brought to the Court. The Article 48A states: "The State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the
country." The Article 51 A(g) imposes a duty upon every citizen of India to protect and improve
the natural environment and confers right to come before the Court for appropriate relief.

The Apex Court in Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 AP 17 held that the
environmental pollution and spoliation which is slowly poisoning and polluting the atmosphere
should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. To
protect and improve the environment is a constitutional mandate. it is the commitment for a
country wedded to the ideas of a welfare State. The Indian constitution contains specific
provisions for environmental protection under the chapters of Directive Principles of the State
Policy and Fundamental Duties. The absence of any specific provision in the Constitution
recognising the fundamental right to (clean and wholesome) environment has been set off by
judicial activism in the recent times.

Article 48A and SI (A)(g)

A global adaption consciousness for the protection of the environment in the seventies prompted
the Indian Government to enact the 42nd Amendment ( 1976) to the Constitution. The said
amendment added Ari. 48A to the Directive Principles of State Policy. It Declares:-

"the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests
and wildlife of the country".

A similar responsibility imposed upon on every citizen in the form of Fundamental Duty_

Art. 51 (A) (g)

"to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and
to have compassion for living creatures".

l
 . . h. ·t in the contex t o f Art 47 and 48 of the
.
A matter regarding the vehicular po~lut1~n me De~A"1 /c1t y~s. Union of India (Vehicular Pollut10n
Constitution came up for cons1.d erat ion m M. . me ' a .
that the air did not become
Case). It was held to be the duty o f the Gove rnment to see . confirming the right to hea Ithy
. Tl Apex court agam 2I
contaminated due to vehicular pollution. 1e . h t lean air also stemmed from Art
environment as a basic human ng · l1t stated that the ng t O c . 1 dmark because of wh1c · h
. h ed to be a maJor an
which referred to right to life. Tl11S case as serv lete phasing out old
. d d · o lh" There was a comp
lead-free petrol supply was mtro uce m e i._ the courts . Delhi owes its present
commercial vehicles more than 5 years old as directed by .
climatic conditions to the attempt made to maintain clean air.

In the case of T.N. Godavarman Tltir1111111/pad v. Union of India, a case conce~1ing

conservation of forests, Justice Y .K. Sabharwal, held : Considering the compuls1ons of the States
and the depletion of forest, legislative measures have shifted the responsibility from States to the
Centre. Moreover any threat to the ecology can lead to violation of the right of enjoyment of
healthy life guaranteed under Art 21, which is required to be protected. The Constitution enjoins
upon this Court a duty to protect the environment.
Article 19 (I) (g)

Article 19(1) (g) confers right upon the citizens to practice any profession or to carry any
occupation, trade or business and this particular right ca1Ties certain reasonable limitations as
given under Article 19(6), which may be compulsory for the welfare of by virtue of a range of
judgments of Supreme Court as well as the High Courts, now it is well settled that the right to
freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business is subject to the condition that it should not
be a cause for environmental pollution.

In Abhilasl, Textile v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation , AIR 1988 Gujarat 57, Court held that:

"Though a person has a right to carry on any business of his choice, but there is no right to carry
on any business inherently dangerous to society, because the interests of society are to be
balanced with the interests of citizens to carry on business , hotels are source of environmental
pollution. Several times, the Indian judiciary directed that closure of certain industries which
were not showing any progress towards setting up of air pollution control system in compliance
with its earlier order. But it does not mean that State is against the concept of industrialization. It
is true industrial development is essential for handling the problems like unemployment, poverty
etc. but the preservation of ecological balance has a paramount place, because it is concerned
with the life and health of the masses. Thus, no polluting industry can be permitted to run under
the garb of development if it results in public nuisance and imbalance of the ecosystem ."
 I
I
I
I

.· :·tide 21

· Sight to Wholesome Environment)

\1
··.-~ o person shall be deprived of his r1ti
,:·stablished by law." e or personal liberty except according procedure

. -, , Maneka
, _ Gandhi
. • v Union oifl11 d",a, the Supreme Court while elucidating on the importance of
· ,e nght to life · under A1t. 21 held that the right to life is not confined to mere animal existence,
uut extends to the right to live with the basic human dignity (Bhagwati J.)

.i he Bench of .Justices Kuldip Singh and Sagir Ahmed held that the Government violated the
Doctrine of Public Trust in M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Natl, and Ors. ( 1996). The Himachal Pradesh
3tate Government had leased out a protected forest area on the bank of river Beas to motels, for
commercial purposes.
]n 1996, the Supreme Court passed a judgment that would hold the State more responsible for
maintaining natural resources.
The Right to Pollution Free Environment was declared to be a part of Right to Life under Article
21 of the Constitution of India in the case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
( 1991 ). Right to Life is a Fundamental Right which includes the Right of enjoyment of pollution
free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
The Ganga Water Pollution case: MC Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1988, SC 1037

The owners of some tanneries near Kanpur were discharging their effluents from their factories
in Ganga without setting up primary treatment plants . The Supreme Court held that the financial
capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish
primary treatment plants. The Court directed to stop the running of these tanneries and also not
to let out trade effluents from the tanneries either directly or indirectly into the river Ganga
without subjecting the trade effluents to a permanent process by setting up primary treatment

In the very recent case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, a case
concerning conservation of forests, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, held: Considering the compulsions
of the States and the depletion of forest, legislative measures have shifted the responsibility from
States to the Centre. Moreover any threat to the ecology can lead to violation of the right of
enjoyment of healthy life guaranteed under Art 21, which is required to be protected. The
Constitution enjoins upon this Court a duty to protect the environment.

Similarly while interpreting ~.21 in ~anga Pollution Case as discussed before, Justice Singh
justified the closure of pollutmg tanneries observed: "we are conscious that closure of tanneries

_J
 · i.- H Ith and ecology have greater importance
may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but hie. ea
to the people."

In Vellore Citizen's case, the court held that:

The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law
of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal
liberty. Article 48A and 51 A(g) of the Constitutional are as under:

# 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.

# Arti~le 51 A{g). To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers
and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.

!& 1¥
 CHAPTERS

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL 2010

The National Green Tribunal has been t bl" h
Tribunal Act 201 0 for effect· d es . is ed on 18 · 10. 20 l Ounder the National Green
. d . ive an expedit10us disposal of cases relating to environmental
pro tect.10n an
h l . conservation of forest s an d ot her natural resources including enforcement of any
Iega l ng t re atmg to environment and g1vmg · • re 11e. f and compensation for damages to persons
an<l_propert~ a nd for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is a specialized body
e~m~p~d wllh the necessary expertise to handle environmental disputes involving multi-
d1sc1plmary issues. The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down under the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal's dedicated jurisdiction in environmental matters shall provide speedy

environmental justice and help reduce the burden of litigation in the higher courts. The Tribunal
is mandated to make and endeavour for disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6
months of filing of the same. Initially, the NGT is proposed to be set up at five places of sittings
and will follow circuit procedure for making itself more accessible. New Delhi is the Principal
Place of Sitting of the Tribunal and Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai shall be the other four
place of sitting of the Tribunal.

Objective
The objective of establishing a National Green Tribunal are as follows:
• To provide effective and expeditious disposal of cases rela~ing to_ environmental
· d conservation of forests and other natural resources mcludmg enforcement of any
protectwnan .
legal right relating to the environment.
Giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property

And other related matters.

Salient Features
The salient features of National Green Tribunal are as follows:

• The NGT is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
but shall be guided by principles of natural justice .

• NGT is also not bound by the rules of evidence as enshrined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .

• It will be relatively easier for conservation groups to present facts and issues before the NGT'
including pointing out technical flaws in a project, or proposing alternatives that could minimize
environmental damage but which have not been considered.
 . . .. rd the NGT will apply the principles of sustainable
• Wl11Ie passmg Orders, decisions, awa s, ·nciples However it must be
. · · le and the polluter pays pn · '
development, the precautionary prmc,p . . t 'ncluding Jost benefits due to
noted that if the NGT holds that a claim is false, It can impose cos s 1
any interim injunction.

Members

The tribunal shall consist

. of a full time
. chairperson,
. . d.1cia
JU · 1mem bers and expert members. The
minimum number of judicial and expert member prescribed is ten in each category a~d .
maximum
· number· 1s
· twenty m
· each category. Anot her 1mpo
· rt an t provision included rn the law 1s
that the chairperson, iffound necessary, may invite any person or more person having
specialized knowledge and experience in a particular case before the tribunal to assist the same
in that case.

A judge of the Supreme Court of India or Chief Justice of High Court are eligible to be
Chairperson or judicial member of the Tribunal. Even existing or retired judge of High Court is
qualified to be appointed as a Judicial Member.

A person is qualified to be an expert member if he has Master of Science with a Doctorate degree
or Master of Engineering or Master-of Technology and has an experience of fifteen years in the
i:elevant field including five years practical experiences in the field of environment and forests in
a reputed National level institutions. Anyone who has administrative experience of fifteen years
including experience of five years irtdealing with environment matters in the Central
Government
an or a State Government or in National or State level institution is also eligible to be
expert member.

Jurisdiction

As per Section 14 (I) The National Green Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases where a
substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to
environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. The acts listed in Schedule I
are:

• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

• The Water (Prevention and Control o[Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;
• The Forest (Conservation) Act,
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act j 198 J;
• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
• The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
• The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
 1 . 11 e Tribunal
.,.-
d' shall hear the dis pu tes ansmg
.. fr
. . and pass ord ers t hereon · om the questions re1erred
ettle such . 1sputes " to m
. sub · sec 1·mn (I) and
5

Appellate Junsd1ction
. . l 6 of th A
under section 10 1
I may, by an order, provide ' _ e ct. As per Section 15 ( ) t· he Act, the Tribunal
I

(a)drelief and compensation to th v1ctlms

. . of II .
un er th e enactments specified ine the Sch d ro ut1on and other environmental dama•e arisin•
any hazardous substance); e u e I (including accident occurring while ~andlin;

( (b) for restitution of property damaged;

(c) for restitution of the envir

onment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.

Review and Appeal

Orders can be appealed to the Supreme Court within 90 days.

LANDMARK NGT JUDGEMENTS

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun and Ors. v. State of U.P. and ors.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been interpreted to mean several things. One of such
interpretations laid down by the court was that people do have a right to Jive in a healthy
environment; right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and Jiving and right of enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.

MAJOR CHALLENGES
• There is the lack proper infrastructure as it functions from two different premises .
• The body shou Id have 111 in im um IO jud ic ia I and expert members, out of which only 2 jud ic ia I
members and 4 expert members have been appointed till date .
• The number f e,w ironmen ta I cases has been on the rise but due to lack of benches and
O
infrastructure, the body is unable to pronounce its judgment on time.
• Despite various proactive suppmt being taken by the tribunal the pollution levels has been
continuously rising over the years. This is due to lack of effective support from government both
at the centre as well in states. The inefficiency of Central and State pollution control boards is
another reason for it. This often resu Its in delays in imp lem entin g the tribuna rs decision .

• The tribunal is not having suo-moto powers which also restricts its ambit in the area of

environment.
NGT has done well so far but many improvements are still required to make accessible, speedy
and effective resolution of environmental disputes a practical reality. The Central and State
government should work in collaboration with NGT to secure the environment with better, faster
enforcement of NGT orders. In the act, there is a provision for appeal to the tribunal within a
period of 6 months of origin of the cause of an environmental problem. This is small time for
reflection of negative impacts of environmental changes. This shall be increased to considerable
time. The government should make it more autonomous and efficient in a view to the growing
concern regarding the environment and climate change.
 I

c/Japter 6

cIVIL AND CRIMINAL REMEDIES F

OR ENVIRONMENTAL
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
I
I Under the Civil Procedure Code O f . . .
1908 , c1v1I suits again t th
were a l lowed. By the amendme t f h . . s e perpetrators of public nuisance
n o t e Civil Procedu C Od .
easier for the general public to k . re e m 1976, the procedure was made
reads as follows· Pub!' N . see . recC>urse m the civil courts. Section 91 of the Code now
· ic u1sances and oth er wrong fiu 1acts affecting the public:-

(1) In the case of a public nuisa h

a suit "or ·d l . . . nee or ot er wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public,
.
l' a ec arat1on and m•unctio
"
" sue h ot h er relief
11 on 1or . as may be appropriate in the
c1rcumstances of the case , ma Y b e mst1tute
· · d ,- (a) By the Advocate-General, or (b) With the leave
of the court , by two or more persons, even th oug h no special
· damage has been caused to such
persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which
may exist independently of its provision. Prior to the amendment in 1976 such suits were
allowed only with the sanction of the Advocate General. Thus a modification was brought about
to the standing requirement which had been an obstacle in civil actions against environmental
degradation. This is an important instance of early relaxation of procedural rules in the wider
context of developing Indian public interest litigation.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Introduction Environmental crime refers to the violation of laws intended to protect the
environment and human health. These laws govern air and water quality and dictate the ways in
which the disposal of waste and hazard~us materials ~an legally take place. Individuals or
· can be found guilty of environmental cnmes.
corporat10ns
. N • ce under the Indian Penal Code focuses on the operation of the law of nuisance
Pubhc msan . . . . . .
h s ecific statutory provisions 111 the Civil and Cnmmal Codes of India. The Indian penal
throug p · · d fi . h . t· bl. . . . .
Code of 60 contains elaborate_ prov1s1~ns e 111111g t e cnme o pu 1c n~1sance 111 its vanous
18
• stances and prescnbes purnshments. Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code deals
aspects an d 111 . . . .
. [fences affecting public health, safety, conve111ence, decency and morals. While Sectwn
with o ·t· . d 1· .h .
defines Public Nuisance, there are two sp~c1 1c sections ea '.ng wit the _foulmg of water
268 . ) and making the atmosphere noxious to health (section 278) which could be used
(Section 277 . .
. t rpetrators of water and air pollut10n. ·
agams pe
. . whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause wronoful loss or
Secuon 425 · . ' e
damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change
in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or demises its value or utility or affects
injuriously, commits "mischief'.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

The Indian Criminal Procedure Code of\ 973 has a significant chapter on maintenance of public
order and tranquility, which falls into four parts. Part A deals with unlawful assemblies (Section
\ 29-\ 32), Part B with public nuisance (Sections 133-143), Part C with urgent cases of nuisance
or apprehended danger (Section 144), and part D with disputes as to immovable property
(Sections \45- \48). Most relevant in our present context is Section 133, which has been resorted
to as an effective remedy to abate public nuisance in instances of environmental harm. This
provision empowers a District Magistrate to pas conditional orders for the removal of nuisances.
This section is supplemented with ancillary provisions, contained in Sections 134 to 143 of the
Code, to constitute a comprehensive procedure tackling public nuisance. Section 144 of the Code
has to be seen as a significant provision conferring wide powers upon the Magistrate to deal with
urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger and tranquillity. This magisterial power has been
exercised only for the purpose of preventing public disorder arising out of public unrest or riot
situations. The potential of this provision is vast, but it does not appear to have been utilised
effectively in cases of environmental harm. The provisions in the old Indian law, which have a
bearing on the environment, have hardly been used in the past. The consciousness to protect the
environment was not as strong then, as it is today. Unless there was awareness on the part of the
people to approach the authorities neither the government nor the courts would have had the
opportunity to make use of the statutory provisions. The important role played by the judicial
activism of the eighties made its impact felt mire in the area of the environmental protection than
in any other field .

Municipal council, Rat/am v. Vardl,ic/,and is a signpost. The Supreme Court identified the
responsibilities of local bodies towards the protection of environment and developed the law of
public nuisance in the Code of Criminal procedure as a potent instrument for enforcement of
their duties.
 \

Strict Liability

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In the
year 1868, the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps
hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances
escape the premises and causes any damage. Going into the facts of the case, F had
a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to
some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R.
Subsequently, R filed a suit against F. 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.

Case-study of Rylands v Fletcher

In this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some
dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause so,rie damage if it escapes then
such person will be answerable for the damaged caused. The person from whose
property such substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn't
been negligfnt 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 pronouncement, the
concept of strict liability came into being. There are some essential conditions
which should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under the head of strict liability.

Essentials of Strict Liability

Dangerous Substances: The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a

"dangerous" substances escapes from his premises.

For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be defined
as any substance which will cause some mischief or hann if it escapes. Things like
explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be tenned as dangerous things.
 Strict-Liability-What-To-Kn -Ab
make the defendai t t .
1
?w . out-ltEscape: One more essential condition to
I premises and sh ~ds ~•ct y l~ab_le is that the material should escape from the
ou n t be Wltbm th e reach of the defendant after its escape.
For instance, the defenda .
the plant e t h nt has some poisonous plant on his property. Leaves from
die Th d er t e pr~perty of the plaintiff and is eaten by his cattle, who as a result
. e e1endant w 111 b 1· bl
b 1 . e Ia e for the loss. But on the other hand if the cattle
e ongmg to the plaintiff ente th . f h ... . ' ..
. r e premises o t e defendant and eats the
poisonous leaves and die, the defendant would not be liable. In the judicial
pronouncement of Reads v. Lyons & Co.(2] it was held that if there is no escape,
th
e defendant cannot be held liable.

Non-natural Use: To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use

of the land. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, 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 ene~gizing
a mill was considered non-natural by the Cou~·t. When the term "non-natural" is to
be considered, it should be kept in mind that there must be some special us.e which
increases the danger to others. Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric
wiring in a house, etc. is considered to be the natural use of land. For instance, if
the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a spark escapes and causes a fire,
the defendant will not be held liable as it was a natural use of the land.

These three condition needs to be satisfied simultaneously to constitute a strict

. liability.

Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability

There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability, which are-

Plaintifrs Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused, the
defendant wouldn't be held liable, as the plaintiff himself came in contact with the
dangerous thing.

In the judicial pronouncement of Ponting v Noakes, the plaintiffs horse died after
it entered the property of the defendant and ate some poisonous leaves. The Court
 held that it was a wrongful intrusion, and the defendant was not to be held strictly
liable for such loss.

Act of God: The phrase "act of God" can be defined as an event which is beyond
the control of any human agency. Such acts happen exclusively due to natural
reasons and cannot be prevented even while exercising caution and foresight. The
defendant wouldn't be liable for the loss if the dangerous substance escaped
because of some unforeseen and natural event which couldn't have been controlled
m any manner.

Act of the Third Party: The rule also doesn't apply when the damage is caused
due to the act of a third party. The third party means that the person is neither the
servant of the defendant, nor the defendant has any contract with them or control
over their work. But where the acts of the third party can be foreseen, the
defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will be held responsible.

For instance, in the case of Box v Jubb, where the reservoir of the defendant
overflowed because a third party emptied his drain through the defendant's
reservoir, the Court held that the defendant ,vouldn 't be liable.

Consent of the Plaintiff: This exception follows the principle of volenti non fit
mJuna.

For instance, if A and B are neighbours, and they share the same water source
which is situated on the land of A, and if the water escapes and causes damage to
B, he can't claim damages, as A wouldn ' t be liable for the damage.

Absolute Liability
The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict
liability minus the exceptions. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the
case of MC Mehta v Union of India. This is one of the most landmark judgment
which relates to the concept of absolute liability.

The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a particular area in Delhi
from industry. Due to the leakage, many people were affected. The Apex Court
 J1en evolved the rule of absolute I' b't•
ta 1 lty on the rut Of · 1· b. ·
that the defendant would be 1. bl c e stnct ta 1hty and stated
. ia e tor the damage d .h . .
exceptions to the strict liability rule. cause wit out cons1denng the

According to the rule of absol . .. .

ute 11ab1hty, 1f any person is engaged in an inherently
d angerous or h azardous act. .t .
. • IVI Y, and 1f any harm is caused to any person due to
any accident which
. . occu rre d d unng
. carrymg. out such inherently dangerous and
h azard ous activity the th . carrying out such activity will be held
. , . n e person who 1s
absolutely
. hable · The excepti·o n t o th e stnct
. 1.ia b't· .
1 1ty rule also wouldn't be
considered. The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also followed
by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To
ensure that victims of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian
Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.

This act was introduced with the aim of providing immediate relief to people who
are victims of accidents in which handling of hazardous substances is involved.
The main focus of the Act is to create a public liability insurance fund which can
be used to compensate the victims.

The Act states that any person who is carrying out inherently dangerous or
hazardous activities should have insurances and policies in place where he will be
. insured against liability to provide compensation to the victims in case any
accident takes place, and some injury occurs. This liability is based on the principle
of "no fault liability" or in other words, the rule of strict liability and absolute
liability. Inherently dangerous or hazardous substance covers under its scope any
mixture, preparation or substance which because of its properties can cause serious
haml to human beings, animals, plants, property or the environment. If any
substance is inherently dangerous or hazardous due to its handling also, then also
the absolute liability of the defendant arises.
 Conclusion

The rule of strict liability and absolute liability can be seen as exceptions. A person
is made liable only when he is at fault. But the principle governing these two rules
is that a person can be made liable even without his fault. This is known as the
principle of "no fault liability." Under these rules, the liable person may not have
done the act, but he'll still be responsible for the damage caused due to the acts. In
the case of strict liability, there are some exceptions where the defe_ndant wouldn ' t
be made liable. But in the case of absolute liability, no exceptions are provided to
the defendant. The defendant will be made liable under the strict liability rule no
matter what.