UNIT-II

ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW PRINCIPLES
 Doctrine of Sustainable
Development
 2 imp. Things:
1) Need for socio-economic devt.
2) Need of limitation imposed on the environment’s
capability to cape with present and future generations
 Brundtland Report, 1997--- “S.D. --- devt. That meets
the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs ---
S.D. requires meeting the basic needs of all and
extending to all opportunity to satisfy their
aspirations for a better life.”
 In Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V.
Bombay Enviro-Action Group (2006) 3 SCC 434
--- held --- S.D. --- process where devt. Can be
sustainable over generations.

 Main objectives of S.D.:

1)Maintain imp. Ecological processes
2)Preserve genetic diversity
3)Secure sustainable utilisation of species and
ecosystems
 In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of
India AIR 1996 SC 2715 --- the petitioner
organization --- concerned about water pollution
resulting from the discharge of untreated effluents
by tanneries and other industries into river Palar in
the State of Tamil Nadu --- a source of drinking
water supply --- SC --- directed the constitution of
an authority under the
 Environment Act to deal with the situation created
by the tanneries and other polluting industries in the
State. The authority was also directed to frame and
execute scheme(s) for reversing
ecological/environmental damage caused by
pollution in the State --- imposed pollution fine on all
the tanneries, and ordered the closure of tanneries
that fail to pay the fine --- allowed suspension of
closure orders where tanneries agree to set up
common effluent treatment plants or individual
pollution control devices and obtain consent to
operate from the SPCB. Failure to obtain consent
from the SPCB would however result in closure of
tanneries --- also observed S.C. ---- eradication
of poverty by social equity and conservation of
biodiversity --- both imp. To S.D.
 In N.D. Dayal v. Union of India (or Tehri Bandh
Case) (2003) 6 SCC 572 --- petition under Article
32 of the constitution was filed connected to the
safety and environmental aspects of the Tehri Dam
(Uttarakhand) --- also, held --- S.D. is inherent in
right to life under Art. 21 of Constitution of India ---
economic and industrial devt.
 Doon Valley Case, or Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P.
AIR 1985 SC 652 --- conflict between devt. And
conservation of environment --- reconcile conflicts
between the two ---
--- indiscriminate mining and quarrying --- denuded
Mussoorie hills of forests and trees --- landslides and
blockage of underground water which fed many
rivers and springs in Doon Valley ---- SC --- held ---
closure of lime stone quarries that operated in the
valley ---- no disturbance in ecology at all.
 Kinkri Devi v State, AIR 1988 HP 4 --- PIL ---
filed alleging that unscientific and uncontrolled
quarrying of the limestone --- caused damage to
shivalik hills --- posing a danger to the ecology,
environment, and inhabitants of the area --- held
---
Proper balance between env. And devt. --- SD
 In Essar Oil Ltd. V. Halar Utkasha Samiti
(2004) 2 SCC 392 (406) --- SC --- held --- SD
balances economic devt. And social needs on one
hand and environmental considerations on the
other.

SALIENT FEATURES OF SD:-

1)Inter-generational equity: already discussed
(Principles 1 and 2 of Stockholm Declaration, 1972
--- genesis)
 Conservation of Options
 Conservation of Quality
 Conservation of Access
 A P Pollution Control Board v M V Nayudu,
AIR 1999 --- SC --- Municipal administration and
urban development of Government of AP ---
prohibited various types of development within 10
km of two lakes, Himayat sagar & Osman Sagar
---these were the reservoirs to supply the water in
Hyderbad and Secunderabad ---
--- Court ordered that there should not be any said
industries within the radius of 10 km --- should not
pollute the water bodies --- protective principle ---
principle of polluter pays --- and principle of
intergenerational equity
2)Use of Conservation of Natural Resources:
o Principles 8 and 23 of Rio Earth Summit, 1992
o A. Jagannath V. Union of India (1997)2 SCC 87
--- intensified shrimp farming culture --- by
modern method --- in coastal areas --- degradation
of mangroove ecosystem --- pollution of
Portable and ground water --- SC --- held --- sea
beaches and coasts --- gifts of nature --- cannot be
allowed to pollute --- must be an Environmental
Impact Assessment --- govt. must take into
consideration --- principle of intergenerational
equity.
o In Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of
India (2003) 7 SCC 589 --- ivory articles ---
prohibited from being exported --- impugned Wild
Life Protection Act 1972 --- also agt. Moral claims
under Art. 48-A of Constitution of India.
3)Precautionary Principle:
o Management of scientific risk
o Imp. Strategy for SD
o Any human activity or behaviour which bears the
harmful effect to the environment --- needs to be
prevented at all costs
o protection of the environment can effectively be
done by taking adequate precautions against the
Environmental damage
o Prevention is better than cure
o Principle 15 of Rio Declaration --- “where
there is a threat of serious or irreversible env.
Damage --- lack of full scientific certainty should not
be used as a reason for postponing measures to
prevent env. Degradation”
o Versorge prinzip --- term --- Germany ---
foresight principle --- precautionary steps to
prevent likely disaster from any industry or any
hazardous undertaking
o 1st case recognised --- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare
Forum v. Union of India (1996) --- SC laid follg.
Rules on precautionary principle:
a) State Govts. And local authorities --- first
anticipate --- then prevent cause of env. Degradation.
b) Lack of scientific knowledge --- merely cannot be
the reason given.
c) Burden of proof is on the actor (one who does the
activity)/ developer/ industrialist --- show that the
action was environmentally friendly.

To achieve the above --- following precautions ---

taken :
a) Decision should be based on best possible
scientific info. and risk analysis
b) Precautionary ,measures --- taken --- even where
there is uncertainty but potentially serious risks
exists
c) More importance --- give --- ecological impacts
--- more to non-renewable resources
d) Indication of costs --- polluter pays principle
o Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
(2000)--- Medha Patkar ---
--- central organizer and strategist for Narmada
Bachao Andolan (NBA) with environmentalist Baba
Amte --- people’s movement organized to stop the
construction of a series of dams planned for India’s
largest westward flowing river, the Narmada ---
flows through Gujarat, MP and Maharashtra---
movement agt. Construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam
in Gujarat upto 455 feet --- acute problem of
rehabilitation of displaced people --- taking over of
land --- dislocate thousands of Adivasis from their
homeland --- violation of Art. 21 of COI ---
--- SC --- held --- construction of dam --- not
violative of Art. 21 --- however ordered ---
concerned authorities to make sure that the displaced
people were properly rehabilitated and provided
alternative land and residential accomodation --- so
that not deprived of rt. To livelihood --- also held ---
construction of dam --- necessary for devt --- but
there must not be any damage to env.
o Risk assessment --- imp.
4) Polluter Pays principle:
o Best method of prevention of environmental
pollution
o the person who is responsible for Environmental
pollution should pay the penalty and compensation
for the people.
o Principle 16 of Rio Declaration 1992 --- legally
and internationally recognised --- “National
authorities --- endeavor --- to promote
internationalisation of environmental costs and use
of economic
Instruments --- taking into account the approach that
the polluter should in principle bear the cost of
pollution with due regard to public interest and
without destroying int. trade and investment”
o M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) ---Sc --- took
notice of pollution of the river Beas by discharge
of untreated effluent from the motel owned by
Kamal Nath --- held --- the motel shall not
discharge untreated effluents in the river and the
Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board shall
inspect the control devices and treatment
plant set up in the motel.
o In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 363, or, H-Acid
case --- industrial units in Bichhri village in
Rajasthan --- producing chemicals like oleum
(concentrated form of sulphuric acid and H-acid)
--- units did not obtain required clearance/licences
--- did not install any proper equipment for
treating harmful toxic effluents --- pollution of
water --- ill-effects and consequences still
remained ----- held ---- closure of
chemical industries --- directed that in future such
industries could be established only after taking into
consideration all environmental aspects --- polluter
pays principle and S.D.

5) Principle of Public Trust:

o Law of the land --- many decisions of Supreme
Court
 Enjoins a duty upon the State to protect natural
resources like air, water, forests, sea, etc. --- for
benefit and enjoyment of general public --- and not
to permit
private ownership over them.
o All natural resources should be freely available.
o Doesnot permit the State to transfer natural
resources to private parties.
o State holds the natural resources as a trustee for
benefit of people who are the real beneficiaries of
this natural resource property.
o The State, that is, the government --- under a duty
to hold it on behalf of the people --- most
importantly, for benefit of the future generation
(Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. V. Minguel
Martins (2009)3 SCC 571)
 Anyone who uses natural resources --- sustainable
use of them.
 3 imp. Features:

a) Natural resources subject of public trust can be

allowed to be exploited for public interest or
benefit of people in general.
b) These resources --- not salable --- nor State State
have any ownership over them.
c) These resources --- protected --- and not fully
exhausted --- use for future generation.
 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)1 SCC 388
(very imp. Case --- discussed earlier)
 Landmark judgement on public trust doctrine
 Spon Motel Ltd. --- a private Co. ---- former
Minister Kamal Nath --- built a motel at river Beas
between Kulu and Manali in H.P --- Co. taken
illegal possession of major portion of forest land
---- which the then Minister Kamal Nath
regularised granted lease of that land to the Co ---
flow of river Beas was diverted by use of bull-
dozers for constructing the
Motel and to protect it from flood --- PIL filed in SC
--- SC applied polluter pays rule and public trust rule
--- held --- power under Art. 32 donot restrict the
Court and can award damages in a PIL writ petition
--- also, held --- in addition to damages in victims ---
persons guilty of causing pollution can also be held
liable for examplary damages for violation of rule of
public trust --- SC imposed on respondent a fine of
ten lakh rupees as examplary damage for ecological
restoration.
 Justice Kuldeep Singh gave the judgment --- and
applied the same principle given by the Californian
Court --- in the historic Mono Lake case (natural
resource like river is not owned by the State which
is only a trustee of it and the beneficiaries are the
people who use the river water)
 In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath --- SC --- issued
follg. Imp. Directions:
1) Doctrine of public trust --- applicable only in
environment related cases.
2) The licence/ lease granted to Spon Co. Ltd. ---
cancelled
3) Expenses incurred on restoration of
forest land to its original natural form shall be borne
by the Co.
4) Expenses for demolition of the motel and
restoring the river bed to its original form --- borne
by the motel
5) Govt. of H.P. --- take back the land from the
motel and initiate steps to bring it in its original
natural form
6) The management of the motel co. to show cause
as to why criminal proceedings should not be
instituted against them.
 In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. V. Radhey Shyam
Sahu --- SC --- held --- the Mahapalika --- liable
for violation of duties as trustee of the public park
--- In this case --- the Mahapalika allowed
construction of air-conditioned underground
shopping complex below the park --- permission
for construction was granted without inviting any
tenders and without obtaining a clearance report
from the Pollution Control Board. ---- SC --- held
---- Mahapalika was trustee for proper
management of the park --- thus destroying the
park --- violation of public
trust doctrine.
o In Intellectual Forum v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2006) 3 SCC 549 --- SC applied doctrine of
public trust and observed ---natural resources
which include lakes nad tanks are held by the State
as a trustee of the public trust --- and can be
disposed in a way that is consistent with the nature
of such a trust.
o Doctrine of public trust --- found judicial
recognition in Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. V.
UOI ---- SC --- held --- air, water, land , forests,
coastal zones, etc. --- valuable natural resources.
6) Doctrine of Strict and Absolute Liability:
o STRICT LIABILITY (OR LIABILITY
WITHOUT FAULT) ---- Rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher:
 any person who keeps hazardous substances on his
premises will be held responsible if such substances
escape the premises and causes any damage.
 The person who for his own purpose brings on his
land and collects and keeps there anything likely to
do a mischief if it escapes --- must keep it at his
own peril, and if he does not do so, is prima-facie
liable for all the damage --- which is the natural
consequence of its escape.
 Kind of liability under which a person is legally
responsible for the consequences flowing from an
activity even in the absence of fault or criminal
intent on the part of the defendant.
 a legal doctrine that holds a party (defendant)
responsible for its actions, without the plaintiff
having to prove the negligence or fault on the part
of defendant.
 In Rylands v. Fletcher --- Fletcher had a mill on
his land, and to power the mill, Fletcher built a
reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the
water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines
owned by Rylands. Subsequently, Rylands filed a
suit against Fletcher. 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.
 The person from whose property such substance
escaped will be held accountable even when he
hasn’t been negligent 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 precedent, the concept of
strict liability came into being.
 Essentials of Strict Liability:
1) Dangerous Things
2) Escape of the dangerous thing
3) Non-natural use of land to make the defendant
liable. Like in Rylands vs. Fletcher case, 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 energizing a
mill was considered non-natural by the Court.
 Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:
1) Act of God
2) Consent of the Plaintiff
3) Act of Third Party
4) Statutory Authority
5) Plaintiff’s Own Default

RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY:

o Genesis --- Shriram Food and Fertilizers gas leak
case, or Oleum gas leak case, or MC Mehta v.
Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086
o Took one year after the Bhopal gas leak case
 No fault liability --- which the wrong doer is not
provided with exceptions which are provided in
rule of strict liability.
 Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity, and harm
results to anyone on account of an accident in
the operation of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity, is strictly and absolutely liable
to compensate all those who are affected by the
accident, and such liability is not subject to any
of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the
tortious principle of strict liability under the rule
in Rylands vs Fletcher.
 In Sriram Food and Fertilizers Case ---- In the centre
of a population of 200,000 people in the area of Kirti
Nagar, Shriram’s Food and Fertiliser factory, Delhi
was situated, which produced products like hard
technical oil and glycerin soaps.
 M.C. Mehta, a social activist lawyer, submitted before
the Supreme Court a writ petition seeking an order for
closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine
and Sulphuric Acid Plant to an area where no real
danger to the people’s health and security will exist.
Pending disposal of the petition, the Supreme Court
allowed the plant to restart its capacity and work.
 On 4 and 6 December 1985, Oleum gas leaked from
one of its units during the pending lawsuit, causing
substantial harm to local residents as a result of the
plant’s gas leakage.
 A lawyer from Tis Hazari Court --- also dies due to
inhalation of the toxic gases.
 SC --- held --- industry --- liable for damages on
account of absolute liability --- to eliminate toxic
and hazardous factories could not be followed
because they still contribute to improving the
quality of life --- permanent factory closure would
result in the unemployment --- However, SC
observed --- quantum of compensation must be
corelated to the magnitude and gravity of the harm
caused --- and even examplary damages may be
ordered.
BHOPAL GAS LEAK TRAGEGY, or,
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION LTD.
V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1990 SC 273, or
Bhopal gas leak tragedy case
 Absolute liability
 took place between the night of 2nd and 3rd
December, 1984. Leakage of ‘Methyl Isocyanate’
poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company
in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major
disaster.
 Over three thousand people lost their lives.
--- heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. A case
was filed in the American New York District Court
as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a
branch of the US based Union Carbide Company ---
The case was dismissed owing to no jurisdiction.
The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas
Disaster Act, 1985 and sued the company for
damages on behalf of the victims --- The court
applying the principle of Absolute Liability held the
company liable and ordered it to pay compensation
to victims.
Difference between Strict and
Absolute Liability:
 In strict liability, any person can be made liable --- in
absolute liability, only an enterprise can be made
liable (commercial objective).
 In strict liability --- escape of a dangerous thing is
necessary, whereas, in absolute liability, an enterprise
can be made responsible even without an escape.
 Certain exceptions are available to a person in strict
liability --- no defences available in absolute liability.