ABSTRACT

Tort is a civil mistake. It involves the liability of individuals for neglect or breach of their
own duties against others... It involves the recognition of rights recognized under civil law in
the absence of a contractual settlement between the wrongdoer and the wounded person1.
While Indian courts still abide by the English Torture Act today, this ideological framework
has, to some degree, promoted innovation and growth that are necessary to confront modern
challenges, especially in the field of environmental protection.

This thesis aims to investigate the application of principles of corruption in India in

environmental risk matters. The norms of torture have been enforced by the Indian judiciary
in several cases of environmental damage, in violation of people's right to a clean and stable
world. It also makes a critical study of the judicial response to the development of a principle
of absolute liability and a general interpretation of the tortuous solution by controlling harm
potential in the management of environmental pollution in India.
INTRODUCTION

In India, the current legal system is being established for all practical purposes on the basis of
the common English law adopted in India by the British. The British colonial authorities,
keen to provide a legislative framework that would maintain law and order and secure
property rights, gradually implemented India's general code of law from the 18th century
onwards. The foundation of this Anglo-Indian justice system was the judicial system
implemented by Warren Hastings in 1772, on which a superstructure was established by
subsequent governments. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Indian legal system
was essentially revolutionized by over-legislation, influenced by the desire to incorporate
English law and enforce English law1.The structure and powers of the judiciary, the roles of
judges and attorneys, the adversarial technique of the court, the emphasis on judicial
precedent and shared resources for principles and strategies have put the Indian legal system
at the center of the common law system. It is proposed that, in the broadest sense of the word,
the common law of India should contain not only what is regarded solely as common law in
England, but also its customs and some of the concepts underpinning the law of England. Fair
standards have been developed in England in order to relieve the rigors of common law, as
well as the customs and procedures that pervade the English legal system2.

Early charters, which established judiciary throughout India underneath the British rule,
obligated judges to act in accordance with 'Justice, Equity and Good Consciousness' when
resolving civil disputes where no basis of law could be found3. In the sense of the historic
establishment of civil law in India by English judges and lawyers, the notion of right, honesty
and good faith, as interpreted and implemented by the then Indian courts, was largely in line
with the development of common law in England. The English-style law has dominated all
major fields of civil law in India, most of which have taken the form of a codified legal order.
The tort law in India, which remained uncodified, followed English law in almost every area
of its area. It is interesting that the common law, first adopted by the British in India,
continues to apply here.
1
A.C. BANERJEE, ENGLISH LAW IN INDIA 189 (New Delhi: Abhinav Publications 1984).
2
M. C. SETALVAD, COMMON LAW IN INDIA 3 (London: Stevens and Sons Ltd. 1960)
3
J. D. M. DERRETT, 3 ESSAYS IN CLASSICAL AND MODERN HINDU LAW 129-138 (Leiden:
Brill 1976)
Pursuant to Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India, unless it has been amended

Or the law in India has changed. The statute was revised and differed from English law only
if the peculiar circumstances existing in India warranted it to do so.

The remedies for contemporary environmental offences are embedded in these concepts of
common law, including nuisance, fault, strict liability and violation and other remedies for
misconduct.

POTENCIAL OF TORT IN CONTROLING ENVIRIONEMENT

POLLUTION
In India, the bulk of environmental pollution cases involve four primary types: disturbance,
negligence, strict liability and intrusion.

Tort law is concerned with redress for the deprivation of private property. It speaks of
compensating a party for a violation of his or her personal right. There is doubt about the
ability of the tort legislation to limit pollution as it seeks to resolve private law infringements.
The effect it can have on environmental management and other risks should be calculated in
compliance with the Tort Law of Stephan Shavell. The reason is that certain (which implies,
equally good and better) means can gain coverage independently of the wrong law.Payout
thresholds can be followed independently of the wrong law, as can risk control goals, but
these two goals are combined in the wrong law. The fault of Tort for injuries rests with the
developers of the risk. The distinctive character of tort law persists in the context of the
relationship between compensation and risk-control. In terms of accident and damage
liability, tort law is two-sided.4Because of the bilateral existence, the tort law is best suited in
the context of environmental law. Responsibility is based on the damage rectification process.
It is likely because risk management is limited by its focus on danger. In fact, a careful
examination of the characteristics of the tort law reveals its true power to protect the
environment.

A) Tort regulation returns to the scene where something went wrong. However, in pollution
cases, tort law will play a role in the event of injury to the environment.

(b) It is much more concerned with recovery than with prevention.

(c) As a matter of fact, it concerns reparation and not retaliation.

4
PETER CANE, THE ANATOMY OF TORT LAW 427-467 (Oxford: Hart Publishing 1997).
(d) Tort law discusses the adverse impacts on persons (both human beings and corporations)
and property. The term 'land' does not mean things, only things which are subject to the
system of law. The planet's atmosphere, for instance, is not subject to any regime of legal
property and thus does not fall under the limits of the tort code. In this way, it is possible to
conclude that the tort law only deals with persons, because only individuals may have
property.

(e) Property is the interest protected from interference with the Law of Corruption

Rights5 and the rights of dignity, such as liberty of reputation and personal rights. Injury to
the human body and psyche, injury to tangible property and financial loss are the archetypal
causes recognised under tort law. Tangible loss to the person, such as sadness, terror and
insult, is more minimal. For existing purposes, cosmetic injury arising from damage to bio-
diversity, for example, is not accepted as such under tort law.

F) It is claimed that the focus of tort law is on damage rather than risk. That is not entirely
valid. For example, the likelihood of loss is an essential component of the negligence
calculus. Danger is also correlated with the central concept of predictability.

g) In cases where an injunction may be awarded to prevent harm occurring in future, an

injunction will be issued only if the court is satisfied that harm is imminent or very likely and
not merely on the basis that the defendant is involved in a risky activity. It varies in this
regard from the precautionary theory, which takes into account the risk inherent in the action
and recommends prevention rather than cure. As an alternative to environmental
conservation, the precautionary principle is also gradually finding favor.

H) Tort liability is primarily a liability dependent on error which usually involves negligence
in the event of tort fault. Under the theory of Rylands v. Fletcher 6, the pre-condition of
foreseeability of injury is a pre-condition of liability. The theory that the polluter pays is
commonly presumed to dictate strict liability.

I Private law remedies for tort which include the cost of environmental loss to persons where
the damage to the environment constitutes harm to those individual interests. There is no
compensation for the environment, and there is no doctrine that compensates the environment
for the damage due to it. It has not been built yet.

5
Rights in land, chattels, intellectual property, such as trade mark, patent etc.
6
Raylands v. Fletcher, LR3HC 330 (1968).
(j) It is impossible to prove any causal relation between the emission of toxins and the
increased prevalence of the disease in certain situations. It is impossible to prove the causes
of injury in some of the situations of which the plaintiffs are passive victims. In certain
situations, it is simply difficult to differentiate between the pollution effects and the overall
context of the illness, which is between personally tortiously injured persons as distinct from
individuals with the same disease caused by background causes. In addition, various forms of
pollutants may be mixed with non-environmental influences to create nuanced associations to
the degree that it might not even be necessary to inquire what causes an illness. In addition to
causing challenges for individual plaintiffs, the decreased chance of a viable lawsuit would
diminish the deterrence impact of tort.

In determining the potential of tort law as a compensation and risk management tool in
matters relating to the safety of the environment, we need to discuss not only the rules and
principles according to which tort liability is enforced, but also the structural framework by
which substantive consequences are produced by these rules and regulations. In other words,
in action, we ought to determine tort law, i.e. the application by the courts of the laws of
tortuous liability in cases relating to environmental protection.

JUDICIAL SKILL IN SHAPING TORTIOUS LIBILITY IN

ENVIRIONMENT PROTECTION

The Indian judiciary has played a remarkable role in implementing principles of tort
law in environmental issues. The credit goes to the Supreme Court in interpreting the
same old principles of tort with wider meaning to encompass the new challenges of
the environmental damage.

Wherever and whenever necessary, the Supreme Court has evolved new principles of
tort and given a new shape to tortious liability in environment protection.

Evolving New Principles of Tortious Liability

Bhopal Disaster has been seen as eye-opening for environmentalists, social workers and
government institutions, as well as the general public. It brought new visibility to India. The
government and the judiciary have started to learn new strategies and techniques of
preventing such events in the future. Compensation for the victims of the Bhopal disaster
caused an enigma under the Indian Torts Act. There has been no controversy in the field of
torture. The proverbial delay, the exorbitant fee of the judge, the complicated procedure and
the documentation of the evidence, the lack of public information, the ethical attitude of the
bench and the bar and the lack of experience among lawyers are all grounds for this
condition.It is often argued that the alleged lack of understanding is a question of principle
and not a matter of truth, since thousands of lawsuits are settled out of court by med.

Judiciary caution is seen in the application of the laws of tort law in the age of science and
technology. Absolute responsibility for accidents suffered by companies engaged in
dangerous and potentially hazardous activities is a newly established doctrine free from strict
liability exemptions in England.

Judiciary activism and craftsmanship were easily visible in the new-focused approach to tort
relief in cases of public interest. In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India 7, the court held a public
dispute of interest where the damage was caused by a business synonymous with hazardous
substances, such as oil gas. A judgment on the appeal of the parties concerned could have
been postponed by the Supreme Court by forcing the parties to bring their cases before the
subordinate court. Instead, the Court proceeded to formulate a broad principle of the liability
of businesses engaged in hazardous and potentially harmful activities. Not just that, Chief
Justice Bhagawati argued that the Court needed to devise a new theory and to lay down new
laws that would better resolve the new problems that emerge in a highly advanced economy.
The Court developed the principle of absolute liability and did not accept exceptions to the
doctrine of strict liability for hazardous industries. The Court did not stop here; it went on to
state that the calculation of compensation had to be tied to the size and potential of the
undertaking.

Chief Justice Bhagawati said: "The larger and more prosperous the undertaking, the greater
the amount of compensation payable by the undertaking for the damage caused by an
accident in the conduct of hazardous or inherently hazardous business activities." This is
considered significant because of its dissuasive effect on the conduct of the undertaking.
Indigenous jurisprudence has been developed by the Supreme Court of India free from the
influence of English law. In this respect, the extent of the owner given to the Court pursuant
to Article 32 of the WAS was so widely interpreted as involving, in an acceptable case, the
formulation of alternative remedies and new approaches for the preservation of the right to

7
AIR 1987 SC 1086.
life and the awarding of compensation.The Court sends a clear message in the event that a
polluter pays reasonable and valid fines for one cause of harrowing. It opened the way for
further change in the legislation and adopted the idea of polluter paying as part of the
environmental regime. The philosophy helps the industry to internalize environmental risks at
the cost of the project and the yearly budget and to establish absolute responsibility for the
harm to the industry. The judiciary has woken up with a fresh conscience and set down legal
principles in plain terms. This was accompanied by an invocation of the technique of offering
orders in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

In Consumer Education and Research Center (CERC) v Union of India 8, the court provided
for remedies following the Mehta dictum .The judgment of the Court is certain that, pursuant
to Article 32, guidance may be granted not only to the State, but also to a company or a
person operating in the purported exercise of powers under the status of license approved
pursuant to Article 32.

In this case, the doctrine of absolute obligation has not been addressed, but a certain sort of
liability has been formulated for toxic industries, such as the manufacturing of asbestos.
Compensation due for working conditions during employment refers not only to those
workers who have visible signs of disease while in employment, but also to those who have
encountered post-retirement symptoms.

In the case of the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India 9, the Supreme
Court upheld the case of Mehta and laid out the basis for establishing absolute liability for the
hazardous industry. The polluter pays theory has been implemented in this case. The Court
ordered the Government to take all action and to levy the costs to the respondents if they
failed to take remedial action.

Instead, socio-economic transition is an issue for the developing world. As Chief Justice
Bhagwati rightly points out, law must adapt to fulfill the needs of a continuously changing
society and keep up-to-date with changes in the country. This is entirely true. The Indian
judiciary has developed new theories of tortious liability by a strong instrument of public
interest litigation.

8
AIR 1995 SC 922.
9
AIR 1996 SC 1466.
Any case relating to public interest Cases included glaring violations in civil rights, which
rendered the traditional remedies highly unsuccessful, such as the awarding of prerogative
judgments by the Courts. The Indian Judiciary has forged unorthodox remedies without
delay. Where urgent action was prompted by the peculiarities of the case, the Court granted
immediate and substantial temporary relief, with a prolonged delay in the final judgment
involving factual issues and legal obligations.

The court refused to limit the complainant to the usual legal recourse in cases of personal
injury10 and improper confinement11. Pursuant to Article 32, appeals shall be granted
immediately to the Supreme Court and penalties shall be granted to convict the complainant
and to deter the wrongdoer from doing so. Compensation shall be provided by the court in
cases of serious breach of human rights. It's a new approach. The court not only dealt with the
violations of human rights, but also took special note of the harm to the atmosphere and the
abuse of civil rights. The court has levied on the polluters the costs of repairing the
environmental impact of such cases12. More commonly, perhaps, the courts have shown a
tendency to experiment with remedial approaches which require continuous supervision and
which appear to dramatically alter the border between adjudication and administration.
Although socio-legal commissions will be formed by the court to gather information,
agencies will be set up to propose effective strategies and oversee compliance. In PIL
matters, the final orders are always thorough, correct and intrusive.

"The Court upheld the true scope and scope of Article 32 of the Constitution in Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v Union of India13 and held: 'It can now be concluded that Article 32 not only
confers on that Court the power to provide instructions, direction or order on the preservation
of fundamental rights, but also imposes a constitutional obligation on the Court to safeguard
fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors.29 that "pollution is a civil
wrong." It is basically a crime committed against society as a whole. A individual who is
guilty of causing pollution is then entitled to pay damages (compensation) for environmental
and ecological restoration. He may therefore pay damages to those who have suffered
damage as a result of the act of the perpetrator. Pursuant to Article 32, the powers of this
Court are not limited and may award damages in the case of a PIL or a Writ Petition, as has
10
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
11
Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086
12
Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
13
(1984) 3 SCC 161
been developed in a number of decisions. In addition to the above fines, the person convicted
of causing pollution can also be held liable for paying exemplary damages so that it can serve
as a warning for those not to cause pollution in any manner... The considerations on which
"fine" can be imposed on a person who is convicted of committing a crime are distinct from
those on the basis that exemplary penalties can be caused by b.

CONCLUSION

Thus, in the Constitution, the judiciary has extended human liberties, the definition of the
State Policy Guidelines and the fundamental duty of citizens to create environmental
jurisprudence. The judge has developed a new interpretation of these laws in the field of
environmental law in India. The general understanding of Article 21 is the remarkable
development of human rights in a clean and balanced setting in India. Article 21 has been
used by the courts to preserve the principles of sustainable growth, the right to clean air,
water and the environment, the right to livelihood, etc. The case law analysis reveals that the
legal system has broadened the scope of Article 21 and introduced international law into
national law. Section 48A and Article 51A respectively (g) have been interpreted with a view
to the clarity of the formation.

Moreover, the liberal reading of Articles 32 and 226 led to the development of remedies for
environmental pollution in India. In environmental proceedings, a new framework for the
distribution of accountability for constitutional misconduct has been created by the Indian
Judiciary. The nuanced interpretation of Article 21 by the judiciary has served a dual
purpose: to protect citizens' rights to a clean and protected environment and to levy fines for
infringements of their private rights.

Judiciary craftsmanship is clearly demonstrated with the usage of local misdemeanor

remedies within private environmental laws. The High Courts have shown a complex
approach in describing the principles of tortuous liability for the protection of the
environment. Decisions made in Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal 14, Ramal v. Mustafabad Oil and
Cotton Ginning Factory15, Krishna Gopal v. State of M.P.16, Dhanna Lal v. Chittar Singh17,
Lakshmipathy v. State18, Ved Kaur Chandel(Smt) v. State of H.P. 19, Bijayanand Patra v.
14
AIR 1982 ALL 285.
15
AIR 1968 P& H 399
16
1986 Cr. C.J. 396 (M.P.).
17
AIR 1959 MP 240
18
AIR 1959 MP 240
19
AIR 1999 HP 59
Ground. Magistrate, Cuttack20, states, in particular, that the behavior of a person (on his/her
estate) becomes a private nuisance when the consequences of his/her activities are no longer
confined to his/her own territory, but are, in a substantial way, spilled over to property
belonging to another human being.

As a result, the court has innovated with new directions for enforcing tortuous environmental
liability. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have created and are in the process of
developing a broad regulatory framework for environmental protection. Over the past three
decades or so, public law, based on the Constitution of India, has made great strides in civil
and criminal law in the world. This recent developments in India, through the extraordinary
exercising of judicial power, must be seen as one of the many ways in which the country's
social and political needs can be addressed. The new approach of the judiciary in seeking
constitutional wrongs has proved to be very effective in protecting the environment and
people's rights in a peaceful and balanced atmosphere.

The role of the Supreme Court in defining tortious liability in environmental lawsuits in India
is impressive, but we also feel that there is a significant lack of tort litigation in India, leaving
the ideological validity of Indian tort law unclear. Several reasons may be given in respect of
limited litigation in India in this area:

(1) The bureaucratic existence of the justice system does not facilitate the search for legal
alternatives to behavioral issues within the community;

(2) a very technical approach taken by judges and lawyers without taking into consideration
the growing needs of Indian society;

(3) The tendency, seen in most Eastern societies in general, to favor the method of dialog
rather than the legal process;

(4) the prohibitive cost of trial, time, labor and energy expended at every stage in the
proceedings;

(5) the side delaying the dispute;

(6) Insatisfactory status of substantive legislation in matters such as the liability of the State
for the wrongs of its servants;

20
AIR1999 Ori 70
(7) Contradictions induced by the co-existence of certain constitutional clauses in the minds
of the litigants;

(8) a low level of legal understanding among the general public;

(9) Challenge to obtain access to the statute where the overwhelming majority of the tort
clause is uncoded;

(10) The totalitarian mindset of government authorities to dissuade people from valid
statements, even though they are legally enforceable.

In the light of these hurdles, which impede the regular development of the tort law in India,
the recent alignment of the tort law with the constitutional right to personal liberty and its
resolution by way of reimbursement is a positive step. The present state of the tort law in
India is marked by major recent changes in the area of public law, which have also given rise
to a modern legal framework.