Introduction
The realm of environmental law explores the various aspects of the surroundings of a human being and aims to provide for the optimum protection of the same through the domestic legal structure. Its scope extends to the development of an awareness and sensitisation to the total environment and its related problems, education of the common public regarding the protection and improvement of the environment and the harmonious implementation of schemes and programmes which is evaluated in terms of the social, economic and aesthetic factors. It is observed that environmental law is that field that expands the horizon of protection and does not limit itself to the human world but touches the other spheres of living and non-living organisms. It thus, emphasises on a process of development without destruction of the environment, the various environments and the different environmental hazards and it attracts amendments in the legal framework to provide a legal protection to the environmental entities according to the changing complexities of time. This, article is dedicated to the case laws which have upheld such amendments in the scope of environmental laws and led to a comprehensive understanding of the same.
Evolution of environmental law through the lens of landmark judgements.
Environmental laws have been formulated through the development and application of certain principles which create a conformity between the man made and natural environment. There is an equilibrium which must be maintained to sustain the process of survival on this planet. To protect this balance from any form of disequilibrium, a legal authority and support is required and this forms the essence of environmental laws. The evolution of this field of law has taken place through landmark judgements where judges have come across situations which called for corrections, alterations, additions and subtraction in the ambit of environmental law. The top 20 cases which facilitate in understanding the province of environmental law are furnished below:
- Vellore citizen welfare forum v Union of India[1]
This case is in relation to the concept of precautionary principle where the apex court recognised it as an essential part of the environmental laws. In that view, the court stated the following precautions that have to be considered:
- There must be a strict emphasis on the scientific information and analysis of risk whenever a decision has to be made.
- Whenever there is an uncertainty with respect to the risks involved in any activity, precautionary measures are supposed to be taken to avoid any disturbance to the environment.
- Ecological impacts are of paramount importance, specifically, when the resources are of non-renewable in nature and the damage is irreversible.
- The indication for the payment of the costs incurred due to the damage must be transparent.
- It is the State Government which is responsible for preventing the environmental degradation and check the nature of activity which is potential of causing damage to the environment. Mere lack of scientific knowledge should not stand as an excuse for the negligence of such obligations.
- Taj Trapezium case (M.C. Mehta v Union of India, 1986)[2]
In this case the court relied upon the definitions and implications of the concepts of polluter pay’s principle and precautionary principle as advanced by the Vellore citizen welfare forum case. The following points encompass the findings of the court:
- As per the precautionary principle, there must be such environmental measures taken by way of which a possible degradation can be anticipated, prevented and attacked. The onus of proving that the activity does not cause any damage to the environment, lies upon the industries/developers, and in this case, on the industrialists that the use of coke/coal as fuel, is environmentally benign.
- While accepting the polluter pay’s principle, the court stated that the industrialists who were responsible in carrying out hazardous activities, were responsible to make good to the loss, even if they had taken precautionary measures. With that view, the court ordered the industries which could use coke/coal as the only fuel to be shifted from the Taj Trapezium Zone and others were ordered to use gas connections for the purposes of fuel supply. The emissions and the discharge of harmful and hazardous effluents from the brick kiln and the other industries within the Taj Trapezium Zone not only corroded the white marble of the Taj Mahal but also affected the people who resided there.
- The court further relied upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for freedom of life and personal liberty, Article 47, 48A and 51(1)(g) which contribute to the sustainable development and protection of the natural environment. The specific legislations dedicated to environmental law, namely, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986, were relied upon to reach the final judgement.
- Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C Mehta v Union of India 1987)[3]
This case dealt with the questions whether a private company could be considered as “other authorities” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the conflict between the concept of absolute liability and the Reyland v Fletcher case, the degree of liability of the industrialists carrying out inherently hazardous activities and finally the payment of compensation. The following points answer the respective questions:
- To answer the first question, the court observed that when an activity is solely the duty of the State, but instead it is carried by a private entity and such private entity is supported financially and substantially by the State, it falls within the ambit of “other authorities” and thus, can be included within the meaning of Article 12, hence, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
- While answering the second question, the court had to consider the increasing complexities of the changing times, due to which industries have mushroomed in a rapid rate. Thus, the concept of non-natural use of land attracting strict liability in the Reyland v Fletcher case, was modified and the natural use of land by industries carrying out potentially hazardous activities could be made absolutely liable.
- Thus, from the previous answer we can derive the answer to the third question which makes the industries carrying out potentially harmful activities absolutely liable.
- The court ordered for the payment of compensation on the principle of magnitude of damage and the paying capacity of the industry was to have a deterrent effect.
- M.C. Mehta v Kamalnath[4]
This case has relied upon the doctrine of public trust as well as the concept of polluter pay’s principle. The doctrine explains that certain objects such as air, water, river bodies, stretch of forest lands are subject to public use and held by the government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use by people in general and not by private individuals only. The following points advances the final judgements on the basis of the mentioned doctrine and principle:
- The court held that any person guilty for polluting the environment is responsible for the restoration of the environment and the ecology. As per the polluter pays principle, the Government is not responsible for such damage caused by private individuals, but the polluter is. The costs of such damage cannot be shifted to the tax payers altogether. However, the damage might not be an immediate effect of any activity but a chain of activities for a prolonged period of time can lead to the derogation. Thus, it is difficult to impose the liability.
- The facts of the present case state that a large river basin which was a part of stretch of protected forest land was leased to the Motel Management for commercial purposes. The court held that the Himachal Pradesh government had caused a breach of the Doctrine of Public Trust by leasing an object of public utility to a private body. Thus, the construction carried out by the Motel Management was held unjustifiable and was ordered to pay a compensation by way of restitution of the environment and ecology.
- A.P Pollution Control Board v M.V Nayadu and others[5]
The court determined if the activities carried out by the industries were inherently hazardous in nature and whether or not the effluents from the industry had the potential of polluting the two lakes, namely, Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar, which supplied drinking water to the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The following gives a gist of the judgement pronounced in this case:
- To answer the questions, the court relied upon the precautionary principle and stated that wherever possible measure is available to avoid any damage to the environment must be taken into consideration before any damage is actually cause. This prevents the haste for a cure when the damage is cause to the environment. Thus, it opined that an authority is to be constituted under section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 for the appropriate implementation of this principle.
- While addressing the second issue the court addressed to the rule of construction of industries outside the prohibited area and within a permissible range which does not affect the life and living of organisms or the objects around. The Water Act was relied upon and the apex court stated that it does not provide for any exemption in this rule.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India[6]
This case indicates the right to fresh environment and access to safe drinking water as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court relied upon the findings in A.P Pollution Control Board v M.V Nayadu and others and came to the conclusion that the construction of the dame obstructed the access and supply of safe drinking water, led to the uprooting of tribals from their land and caused a severe violation of Article 21 and ILO Convention 107, to which India is a signatory. The dam would lead to environmental degradation and effect the ecology by influencing the natural habitat of certain organisms, the aesthetics of the monuments, flora and fauna thus, leading to a disequilibrium in the system. However, the court also considered the benefits that could be derived from the construction of the dam and hence, allowed it with the imposition of certain limitations.
- Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 1984.
The court while deciding the compensation to be paid by Union Carbide Corporation for the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate from its plant in India, namely, Union Carbide India Limited, relied upon the principle of absolute liability where, the corporation had to pay the amount of compensation fixed by the court to the people who suffered the massive mishap. The corporation could not escape by the virtue of strict liability as the court found them to be absolutely liable for carrying out such activities that were inherently hazardous and were potential pollutant of the environment. Compensation was paid to the workers of the plant as well as the people residing in the surrounding area falling prey to such an incident.
- Consumer education and research society v Union of India[7]
The court had to consider various angles to come to the conclusion and deliver its judgement which included the conditions in which the workers had to perform their duty, the exposure to asbestos, the compensation to be paid for the hazards caused to their life due to such exposure and the application of polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle. The court ordered the following of “All Safety in the use of Asbestos” regulation of the International Labour Organisation by all industries and the obligation of such industries to pay the compensation to the workers who have been affected by the hazardous exposure to asbestos and the application of the “membrane filter test” for the asbestos to be used. The court also stated the application of polluter pays principle and precautionary principle by the State legislature and State Government to balance the benefits derived from the environment and the development.
- K.M. Chinappa v Union of India[8]
This case is in relation to the concept of inter-generational equity which speaks of the balance between the use of natural resources by the present generation and the sustenance of the same resources for the use in the future generations. It protects the complete consumption of the environment and environmental resources and makes way for its use by the upcoming generations. Thus, the court held in this case that there must be an equilibrium in the needs of the present generation and the ability and opportunities of the future generations.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products[9]
The present case deals with the concept of inter-generational equity and sustainable development which makes it necessary for the current generation to minimise the use of natural resources to the extent that it fulfils the needs of the present times as well that of the future generations. The court observed that there was threat to the forest lands which could negatively influence the entire ecological system and thus, it held that the present generation has no right to deplete the existing forests completely and leave absolutely nothing for the next generations. The exhaustive use of the natural resources can prove to be detrimental for the future generation, preventing them from fulfilling their requirements.
- Sachhidananda Pandey v State of West Bengal[10]
The court relied upon the doctrine of public trust and examined the facts and circumstances in the present case to reach the final conclusion. It observed that the land that was leased to the Taj Group of Hotels for the construction of the Five Star hotel, was not in contradiction to the public interest and hence, the step taken by the State to grant the lease was not illegal. The court opined that the construction was not potential of causing any environmental derogation or pose a threat to the ecological system and was inconsonance with the doctrine of public interest and hence the construction was valid and allowed.
- The Goa Foundation vs Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd[11]
The facts of the case involved the construction of a beach resort which seemed to be inconsistent with the CRZ-I which is an eco-sensitive zone. A construction within this zone can be detrimental to the ecological system and negatively influence entities that constitute the ecology of the particular zone. The court relied upon the concept of sustainable development and thus held that there must be a harmony on the issue of ecology and developmental projects.
- M.C Mehta v Union of India[12] (Ganga pollution case)
The writ petition was filed in the nature of mandamus by M.C. Mehta to prevent the tanneries at Kanpur from discharging domestic and trade effluents in the Ganga River, until the proper installation of treatment systems that would treat the toxic effluents before they led into the water body. The apex court thus, relied upon the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 to deliver the judgement in this case. It observed the failure of the Government to implement the provisions of the Acts mentioned and ordered the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to take necessary steps to prevent water pollution.
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun & others v State of Uttar Pradesh (Dehradun- Mussoorie quarrying case)[13]
The court relied upon the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the various underlying principles of environmental law. It opined that there must be a balance between development and ecology and a situation of disequilibrium will not only affect the current generation, but the future generations as well and hence steps must be taken by both, the Government and the individual citizens towards sustainable development. This would provide a mechanism for stability in the ecology as well as in the rapid growth in the man-made society.
- Indian Council for Enviro legal action v Union of India[14]
The present petition was filed to prevent and remedy the derogation of environment caused due to the pollutants discharged and emitted by the industries in Bichri Village of Udaipur in Rajasthan. The court relied upon the doctrine of sustainable development and the polluter pays principle and held that a person or body of persons carrying out inherently hazardous activities is liable to make good to the loss caused to the other person irrespective of the precautionary measures taken by the industry. It finds the industry to be absolutely liable.
- T. Damodar Rao v S.O Municipal Co-operation Hyderabad[15]
The court emphasised on the significance of the Constitutional provisions highlighting Articles 19(1)(g), 48A, 51A(g), 32 and 226 in the realm of environmental law. It held that it is not only the responsibility of the citizens, but also the obligation of the states and all other state organs and authorities including the judiciary to protect the environment and its entities and take necessary steps to prevent, attack and remedy the losses caused due to rapid development.
- Dr. B.L Wadhera v Union of India[16]
The court has found the Government neglecting its responsibilities in protecting the environment by not implementing the laws to the optimum extent. Thus, considering the various principles and doctrines, the court held that the government agencies shall not plead non-availability of funds, inadequacy of staff or other insufficiencies to justify non-performance of their duties towards the strict enforcement of the environmental laws.
- Court on its own motion v State of Himachal Pradesh[17]
The court observed that various industrial activities that were being carried out in the valley of Rohtang pass, affected the environment enormously. The glacier, the people residing in and around the industries and the entire ecological system was at stake and thus the National Green Tribunal imposed numerous restrictions on the industries that were functional in the state of Himachal Pradesh thus, taking steps towards the protection of the ecology of the particular region.
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.; Supreme Court of India[18]
The petition was filed to prevent the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro, which was not taken care of by the State Pollution Control Board nor the State of Bihar. The Court however, held that the access to pollution free safe drinking water is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which was later incorporated under its purview and stated the Board could allow the Tata iron and Steel Plant to operate as per sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act, 1974 as it did not pollute the water body and the petition could not afford to sustain and hence, was dismissed.
- Municipal Council Ratlam v Shri Vardhichand and others [19]
The lack of funds that caused the non-performance of duties by the Municipal Co-operation and thus, the court held that in such situation, the authorities can raise the funds from the state government itself by elitist projects, or in the form of loans from the accounts of public health expenditure, but the ack of financial resources shall not stand as a reason for non-performance of obligation towards public utility and environmental purposes.
The above cases provide a wholesome understanding of the application of the principles and doctrines that facilitate the evolution and implementation of the environmental laws in the domestic legal framework of India.
[1] (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[2] 1987 SCR (1) 819.
[3] 1987 SCR (1) 819.
[4] (1997)1 SCC 388.
[5] 1994 (3) SCC 1
[6] 10 SCC 664.
[7] 1995 SCC (3) 42
[8] Writ petition (civil) 202 of 1995
[9] 1995 SCC (6) 363
[10]1987 SCR (2) 223
[11] 1999 (2) BomCR 550
[12] (1987) 4 SCC 463
[13] 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 537
[14] 1996 SCC (3) 212
[15] AIR 1987 AP 171
[16] 1996 SCC (2) 594
[17] 1988 CriLJ 438
[18] 1991 SCR (1) 5
[19] 1991 SCR (1) 97
YLCC would like to thank Mouboni Banerjee for her valuable inputs in this article.
