Introduction

Environment is an essential element in the lives of humans. Destruction of environment can

affect the livelihood of the people. Environmental laws are essential to protect the
environment from exploitation of man-made activities. It ensures and provides guidelines to
the people on conducting activities that might harm the environment. The laws are amended
according to the problems faced by the country. Environment laws are not constant, they are
evolving concept. The legislation and judiciary has contributed and shown great concern
regarding environmental laws by passing important legislations and landmark judgements
respectively.

Evolution of Environmental Laws

Pre-Independence Era Environmental Law

The necessity of environmental hygiene is seen from the historical evidences of Indus valley
civilisation where there is ventilated houses, proper drainage systems, etc. This continues till
the current era. But proper legislations were established during the British era i.e. 1800-1947
AD. The following are the legislations:-

Shore Nuisance (Bombay and Kolaba) Act, 1853

Merchant Shipping act, 1858
Offences that pollute the environment were included in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it
was punishable under Chapter XIV of the code.
The Fisheries Act, 1897
The Bengal Smoke Nuisance Act, 1905
The Bombay Smoke Nuisance Act, 1912
Wild Birds and animals Protection Act, 1912
Indian Forest Act, 1927
Post-independence Era Environmental Law

When India got independence from British Rule, India formed its own constitution by 1950
but The leaders of the country gave more priority to the economic development and
elimination of poverty in the country. As a result, the constitution did not deal much about the
environmental aspects. It was only in 1972, during a United Nations Conference on Human
Environment held at Stockholm led to adoption of various measures to preserve the
environment and prevent pollution. Accordingly, Indian Parliament inserted two Articles, i.e.,
48A and 51A in the Constitution of India in 1976.

Article 48 A states that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
Article 51A: This article mentions the Fundamental Duties that should be followed by the
citizens. It also mentions to protect and improve the natural environment including forest,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Apart from these two articles, Article 21 of the constitution includes the right to clean and
healthy environment.
The National Council for Environmental Policy and Planning was set up in 1972 which was
later evolved into Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in 1985.

The various legislations that came post-independence are as follows-

The Prevention of Air and Water Pollution, 1974, 1981. It was in this act that the Central
Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was constituted.
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It was enacted by the Central govt to provide
conservation of forests and matters connected with deforestation
The Air Prevention and Control of Pollution, 1981.
The Environmental Protection Act, 1986. It came into force soon after the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy.
The Environmental Conservation Act. 1989.
The National Environmental Tribunal, 1995.
National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
National Environment Management Act (NEMA), 1998
Handling and Management of Hazardous Waste Rule in 1989.
The Public Liability Insurance Act (Rules and Amendment), 1992

IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENT LAW

Sustainable Development (SD)

Sustainable development, in simplest terms, refers to development that is sustainable.
Development can be defined as a collective process of change towards improvements in
quality of life for human beings and their communities’ sustainability refers to the need for
development to be integrated- socially, economically, and environmentally sound having a
long lasting ability. Thus the terms ‘sustainable development’ implies three basic objectives:
Economic Development: An economically sustainable development must be able to produce
goods and services on a continuing basis to maintain manageable levels of governments
(national, state and local) and to avoid imbalances which can damage agricultural and
industrial pollution.
Environmental Protection: an environmentally sustainable system must maintain a stable
resource base avoiding over-exploitation of renewable resources and depleting them only
when substitutes are available
Social Welfare: A socially sustainable system must achieve distributional equality, adequate
provisions of social services including health and education, gender equality and public
participation.
The term sustainable development was coined for the first time in the World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987 and appeared frequently in its report called “Our
Common Future” [more popular as Brundtland Report]. The Report defines it as
“development that meets the need of present generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.”
Although the concept of sustainable development was introduced in the 1987 Brundtalnd
commission, but that does not mean the notion of sustainable development was not there
prior to 1987. For instance, the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, though not expressly and
specifically, under Principle 13 refer to the duties of the States to integrate economic
development with the protection of environment.
The Rio declaration goes further more than most of the instruments by expressly stating that
“in order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an
integral part of the developmental process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.”
Four recurring elements appears to comprise the legal elements of sustainable development,
as reflected in the international instruments:
The need to preserve natural resources for the benefit of future generations: Principle of IGE
The aim of exploiting the natural resources in a manner which is sustainable and prudent or
wise or rational: Principle of sustainable use.
The equitable use of resources: the Principle of Sustainable Use.
The need to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into economic and other
developmental plans, programs and that developmental need are taken into account in
applying environmental objectives: Principle of Integration.
Apart from these four principles, three new principles have recently been incorporated under
the notion of sustainable development: obligation to assist and cooperate; eradication of
poverty, financial assistance to developing countries. Together these seven principles aim at
creating a balance between environment and development.

Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary principle only began to appear in international legal instruments in the mid
1980’s. It aims to provide guidance in development and application of environmental law
where there is scientific uncertainty.
The Precautionary Principle underlies the concept of sustainable development which requires
that the development must be stopped and prevented if it causes serious and irreversible
environmental damage.
Instance of Precautionary Principle: when the impacts a particular activity – such as the
emission of a hazardous substances- are not completely clear, the general activities is to let
the activity go ahead until the uncertainty is resolved completely. The Precautionary Principle
counters such general presumptions. When there is an uncertainty regarding the impacts of an
activity, the Principle advocates actions to anticipate and avert the environmental harm. In
this case, the Precautionary Principle will favor monitoring, preventing or mitigating
uncertain potential threats.
The Precautionary Principle represents a shift in decision-making. Accordingly, it allows for
five key elements that can prevent irreversible damage to people and nature:
Anticipatory actions i.e. the duty to take actions to prevent harm
Right to know i.e. community’s right to know complete and accurate information on potential
human health and environmental impacts
Alternatives assessments i.e. to examine a full range of alternatives and select the alternative
with the least potential impact on human health and environment.
Full cost accounting i.e. cost benefit analysis
Participatory decision process i.e. decisions applying this principle should be transparent and
public participatory
This principle thus assumes that science could provide policy makers with the information
and means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment to assimilate
impacts and it is presumed that relevant technical expertise would be available when
environmental harm was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid
such harms.
The basis for emergence of this principle is the non-availability of full information about the
widespread ramifications, serious and irreversible harm which may be caused, based on
scientific experiments. This is known as ‘inadequacies of science’.
Thus, PP is a notion which supports taking protective actions before there is complete
scientific proof of risks i.e. actions should not be delayed simply because there is a lack of
full scientific information.The question which arises is when these precautionary steps have
to be taken?
When there are threats of serious or irreversible damage
When there are significant risks of damage
When there is a reason to believe that damage is likely to occur
When there is no full proof of harmlessness
The Principle appeared for the first time in a Declaration adopted by an International
Conference on the North Sea in 1987 and is now included in almost all the International
Instruments related to environmental protection adopted since 1990’s.
Principle 15 of Rio Declaration, 1992 states that “In order to protect the environment, the
Precautionary principle shall be widely applicable by the States according to their
capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cast effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.”
The Indian Supreme court has also adopted this principle and currently, the legislature is also
trying incorporating it in various environmental legislations.
In the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and Others The
Precautionary Principle and the new Burden of Proof, The `uncertainty’ of scientific proof
and its changing frontiers from time to time has led to great changes in environmental
concepts during the period between the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and the Rio
Conference of 1992., a three-Judge Bench of this Court referred to these changes, to the
`precautionary principle’ and the new concept of `burden of proof’ in environmental matters.
Kuldip Singh, J. after referring to the principles evolved in various international Conferences
and to the concept of `Sustainable Development’, stated that the Precautionary Principle, the
Polluter-Pays Principle and the special concept of Onus of Proof have now emerged and
govern the law in our country too, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of our
Constitution and that, in fact, in the various environmental statutes, such as the Water Act,
1974 and other statutes, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, these concepts are
already implied. The learned Judge declared that these principles have now become part of
our law.
Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)
Under environmental law, the polluter pays principle is enacted to make the party producing
pollution responsible for paying the damage done to the natural environment.
According to this principle, the polluter should pay for the expenditure of pollution control
measures such as the investment in anti-pollution installations, the costs of running these
installations and introduction of new processes so that a necessary environmental quality
objective is achieved.
The main objective of polluter pays principle is that the polluter should bear the expense of
carrying out the measures decided by public authorities to ensure that the environment is in
an acceptable state.
The polluter pays principle never got featured in Stockholm Conference. However, the first
international document to refer expressly to the polluter pays principle was the 1972 OECD
Council Recommendations on guiding Principles Concerning the International Economic
Aspects of Environmental Policies.
Principle 16 of Rio Declaration states that: “national authorities should endeavor to promote
the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into
account that the polluter should bear the cost of pollution with due regards to public interest
and without distorting international trade and investment.”
Thus, polluter pays principle aims to avoid the wastage of natural resources and to put an end
to the cost-free use of environment.
In this way, this principle is considered to be the most efficient way of allocating costs of
pollution. Prevention and control measures introduced by the public authorities to encourage
rational use of scarce natural resources.

Indian Judiciary and the Polluter Pays Principle

The Indian Judiciary has incorporated the Polluter Pays Principle as being a part of the
Environmental Law regime is evident from the judgments passed.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India 1996(3) SCC 212

The Court held that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the
person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by
his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his
activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on.

Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India 1996(5) SCC 647

The Court interpreted the meaning of the Polluter Pays Principle as the absolute liability for
harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of the pollution but also
the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged
environment is part of the process of ‘Sustainable Development’ and as such the polluter is
liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged
ecology.”
The Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India) AIR 1987 SC 1086

The Court in Oleum Gas Leak case laid down that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of
persons working in the factory and to those residing in the surrounding areas, owes an
absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to any one
on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has
undertaken. The enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and irrespective
of all reasonable care taken on his account. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise,
greater must be the amount of the compensation payable for the harm caused on account of
an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the
enterprise.

M. C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors (1997)1SCC388

The Court held that pollution is a civil wrong and is a tort committed against the community
as a whole. Thus, any person guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages (compensation)
for restoration of the environment and ecology. Under the Polluter Pays Principle, it is not the
role of Government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in
carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden
of the pollution incident to the taxpayer.

Inter-Generational Equity (IGE)

The use if the term Inter-Generational Equity is a concept of recent origin under the regime if
international environmental law.
Inter-Generational Equity is a concept that says that human beings hold the natural and
cultural environment of the earth in common- both with the members of present and future
generations. It simply portrays that we have inherited our earth from our ancestors and have
an obligation to pass it on in reasonable conditions to future generations.
The principle of Inter-Generational Equity is based on the notion that ‘justice between
generations requires equity between generations’. Accordingly, each person has an inherent
right to exist, survive threats, have access to resources and pursue a decent life, despite his or
her social and economic status.by the same token, unborn generations must inherent various
opportunities for a good life that have not been diminished by those who came before them.
The central notion of Inter-Generational Equity is that the future generations shall have the
same access to the resources and ecological services that the current generation is enjoying.
There are three required principles of Inter-Generational Equity and these principles require
that the current generation has following obligations on their part:
CONSERVATION OF OPTIONS: fulfillment of this principle can be accomplished not only
by conservation of resources directly, but also by mew technological developments that
creates substitutes for existing sources.
CONSERVATION OF QUALITY: each generation is required to maintain the quality of
planet so that it is passed on in no worse condition than in which we received from previous
generations.
CONSERVATION OF ACCESS: each generation should provide its members with equitable
rights of access to the legacy of previous generations and should conserve this access for
future generations.
The principle of Inter-Generational Equity is one of the central components of sustainable
development. This is apparent from the most widely accepted definition of sustainable
development featured in Brundtland Report. And accordingly, sustainable development is the
development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.
Principle 1 of Stockholm Conference proclaims that: ‘man has the fundamental right to
freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits
a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears the solemn responsibility to protect and improve
the environment for present and future generations’
The principle was again reaffirmed at Rio Declaration, 1992 in Principle 3 which provides
that “the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and
environmental needs of present and future generations.”

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

Generally, and Environment Impact Assessment can be described as a study of the adverse
consequence which any planned project may have on the environment.
There are two main functions of EIA which operates to achieve its objectives:
The findings of Environment Impact Assessment come out as a report which affects the
decision whether the development project should be implemented. It also suggests whether
the projects should be modified to minimize the consequences of the environment.
Secondly, it encourages public participation that is likely to be affected by installation of such
projects.
Environment Impact Assessment is a combination of procedural rules and environmental
values requiring the decision makers to account for and justify their decisions.
Environment Impact Assessment is of two types: mandatory method and discretionary
method. Under mandatory method the Environment Impact Assessment procedure is made
compulsory and the environmental agencies are obliged to submit Environment Impact
Assessment before taking up any project. This ensures information to public and promotes
their participation in decision-making process, thereby balancing the interests of both the
public as well as the person carrying out such project. Under discretionary method however,
Environment Impact Assessment is not compulsory and depends upon the administrative
authority to demand for the process. The drawback of discretionary method is that it gives
unbridled and arbitrary powers to the administrative authority.
Principle 17 of Rio Declaration incorporates this principle which states that “Environment
Impact Assessment as a national instrument shall be undertaken for proposed activity that are
likely to have significant impact on the environment and are subjected to a decision of a
competent national authority.”
The best definition of Environment Impact Assessment comes from IAIA [International
Association for Impact Assessment] which provides that- “Environment Impact Assessment
is a process if identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social and
other relevant effects of development proposal prior to major decisions being taken and
commitments made.”
It is a tool that seeks to ensure sustainable development through the evaluation of those
impacts arising from a major activity that are likely to have significant environmental
impacts.
Thus, the Environment Impact Assessment is anticipatory, participatory and systematic in
nature.

DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRSUT

Doctrine of Public Trust
Resources like air, sea, waters and therefore the forests have nice importance to the
individuals as a full that it might be wrong to create such resources a subject matter of
personal possession.

Natural resources being a present of nature, ought to be freely out there to everybody
regardless of the standing in life.

The doctrine enjoins upon the govt to safeguard the resources for the enjoyment of the final
public instead of to allow their use for personal possession or industrial functions

Thus as per the public trust doctrine, public at massive is that the beneficiary and therefore
the State as a trustee is beneath a responsibility to safeguard the natural resources.

The Origins of the general public trust doctrine

The origins of the doctrine will be derived back to Roman times. per the Institutes of
Justinian I, ‘by the law of nature, these items square measure common to group the air,
running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the ocean.’ However, Roman
principles of acquisition of property were supported the premise of abundance. Nowadays,
thanks to the insufficiency of resources the idea of charitable trust relies on ecological
interdependency.

Public Trust Doctrine in India

The Public Trust doctrine has its origins in legal code. it’s been extended in recent years,
putting a requirement on the state to carry environmental resources in trust for the advantage
of the general public. At its widest, it may well be employed by the courts as a tool to
safeguard the setting from several varieties of degradation. In some countries, the doctrine
has fashioned the idea of environmental policy legislation, permitting personal rights of
action by voters for violations by the state (directly or indirectly) of the general public trust.

The Rule of Law runs near to the rule of life and therefore the Indian Constitution, in its
humanist vision, has created environmental-ecological preservation a basic price. the upper
jurisprudence of Article twenty one of the Constitution (right to life) embraces the protection
and preservation of nature’s gift while not that life ceases to be viable and human rights
become a simulacrum. In alternative words, this right to life beneath article twenty one has
been extended to incorporate the proper to a healthy setting and therefore the right to bread
and butter. The third side of the proper to life is that the application of public trust doctrine to
safeguard and preserve the general public land. once the Indian courts have applied the
general public trust belief, they need thought of it not solely as a world law idea, but one, that
is well established in their national system.

The doctrine is initial mentioned in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 [4]The
regime of H.P. granted lease of bank forestland to a non-public The regime of H.P. granted
lease of bank forestland to a non-public company for industrial purpose. the aim of the lease
was to create a motor lodge at the bank of the watercourse Beas. A report titled “Kamal Nath
dares the mighty Beas to stay his dreams afloat “published in an exceedingly national
newspaper alleged that the tourist court management interfered with the natural flow of the
stream so as to divert its course and to save lots of the tourist court from future floods. The
Supreme Court initiated suo motu action supported the news article.

The Supreme Court expressed that the general public Trust school of thought primarily rests
on the principle that bound resources like air, sea, waters and forests have such nice
importance to the folks as a full that it’d be unreasonable to create them an issue of personal
possession. The court determined that: As rivers, forests, minerals and such alternative
resources represent a nation’s natural wealth. These resources don’t seem to be to be frittered
away and exhausted by anybody generation. each generation owes a requirement to any or all
succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the state within the
absolute best method. it’s within the interest of grouping. it’s within the interest of the state.
Thus, the general public Trust school of thought could be a a part of the law of the land.

LANDMARK CASES ON ENVIRONMENT LAW

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715: (1996) 5 SCC 647
This is a leading case in which the Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship
between environment and development.
The petitioner- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a Public Interest Litigation U/A 32 of
Indian Constitution against the large-scale pollution caused to River Palar due to the
discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil
Nadu. The water of River Palar is the main source of drinking and bathing water for the
surrounding people.
Further, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore found that nearly
35,000 hectares of agricultural land has become either totally or partially unfit for cultivation.
The question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the
tanneries should be allowed to continue to operate at the cost of lives of lakhs of people.
The Supreme Court examining the report delivered its judgment making all efforts to
maintain a harmony between environment and development.
The Court admitted that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign exchange earner and
also provides employment to several thousands of people. But at the same time, it destroys
the environment and poses a health hazard to everyone.
The court delivering its judgment in favor of petitioners directed all the Tanneries to deposit a
sum of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the office of Collector as fine
The Court further directed the State of Tamil Nadu to award Mr. M. C. Mehta with a sum of
Rs. 50,000 as appreciation towards his efforts for protection of Environment.
The Court in this case also emphasized on the constitution of Green Benches in India dealing
specifically with matters relating to environment protection and also for speedy and
expeditious disposal of environmental cases.

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353

On a PIL filed by the Mr. M. C. Mehta U/A 32 of Indian Constitution, it was observed by the
Supreme Court that water of River Ganga was highly toxic near Kanpur city- as the Tanneries
in the area were discharging their untreated effluents into the River.Also, nine nallahs were
discharging sewage effluents and sludge into the river. Similarly, dead bodies and half-burnt
bodies were also been thrown into the river. Also, the water supply and sanitary conditions in
the entire city was inadequate and not up to the marks of a normal city.
The petitioner demanded the issuance of a writ/order/direction to restrain the State of U.P
from letting out trade effluents into River Ganga.
It was contended by the respondents that the Tanneries from the Kanpur city- due to their lack
of physical facilities and technical know-how and funds- it was not possible for them to
install the proper treatment facilities.
The Court rejecting their contentions said that “the financial capacity of a tannery should be
considered irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary trea6tment plants… Just like
an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, the
tannerieswhich cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue.”
Further, the court observed that the contents of iron and manganese were higher from the ISI
limits of river water which was found to be very harmful for consumption.
The court ordered the Tanneries which did not appeared before the court should stop
functioning and before they restart , they must install pre-treatment machineries for trade
effluents.
Therefore, the court held the Kanpur Mahanagarpalika liable and also passed several
direction for the PCA (Prevention, Control and Abatement) of pollution of River Ganga,
some of which were:
Increase of size of sewers in labor colonies;
Construction of several numbers of latrines and urinals;
Preventing the throwing the dead bodies and half-burnt bodies or ashes after Funeral
ceremonies into the river;
Installing treatment plants in tanneries and other factories;
Observe the ‘Keep the village clean week’
Addition of slides relating to importance and purity of water in the theatre at the time of
intervals.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India , AIR 1996 SC 1446: (1996) 3
SCC 212
In this case, 5 factories were producing Hyaluronic Acid [H-acid] in Bicchari village,
Udaipur. These units were discharging highly toxic untreated effluents i.e. iron and gypsum
based sludge.
The result was long-lasting damage to the underground soil, underground water and
environment in general. The water in around 60 wells spread over 350 hectares turned red
and became unfit for drinking and other household purposes. The entire land of 350 hectares
became infertile.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting under the powers given to him under Sec 144 Cr.P.C
ordered to show cause as to why these factories should not be shut down.
Accordingly, a writ petition was filed by the Environmentalist organization- Indian Council
for Enviro-legal Action before the Supreme Court to look into the above matter.
The court dealt in detail the matters concerned above referred to the cases of Rylands versus
Fletcher, Oleum Gas Leakage case, Bhopal Gas Tragedy etc. and applied the Principle of
Absolute Liability.
The Court ordered closure of factories and also ordered them to pay damages up to the tune
of Rs. 4 Crores for reversal of ecology of the area.
The Court also suggested setting up of Green Benches in all the State High Courts.

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Case / Oleum Gas Leakage
Case], (1986) 2 SCC 176
The rule of Absolute Liability which is a more stringent rule than Strict Liability was laid
down in this case. This case is more popular as the oleum gas leakage case.
Shri Ram Food and fertilizers Industry is a subsidiary of the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. Located
in a thickly populated area of Delhi.
On 4th December 1985, there was a leakage of oleum gas from the Sulphuric acid plant
resulting in the death of an advocate and several injuries to other persons. Again, on 6th
December 1985, there was a minor leakage of Oleum gas from the same plant. Against a
complaint under Sec 133 Cr.P.C., the District Magistrate directed the management of Shri
Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry to close the unit and to show cause the reason within seven
days in writing.
The petitioner Mr. M. C. Mehta files a PIL u/A 32 of Indian Constitution. The petitioner in
his petition requested the Court to direct the Government to take necessary steps to avoid
such leakages from the industries engaged in dangerous and hazardous manufacturing
processes. He also reminded the Court of the recent incident of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and
prayed the Court to direct the management to shift these industries somewhere far from the
city.
The issues before the Supreme Court in this case were:
Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not?
If not, what measures are require to be taken to prevent the leakages, explosion, air and water
pollution?
Whether there are any safety devices existing in the Plant or not?
The Supreme Court after great debate and discussion, decided to permit Shri Ram Food and
Fertilizers Industry to restore its operations. The Court observed that although such industries
are dangerous, they are very essential for the economic and social progress of the country.
The court directed the management to deposit in the court Rs. 20 lakhs as security for
payment of compensation to the victims. Further, all the recommendations of the expert
committees are to be complied by the Industry and safety equipment are to be installed at the
first instance.
The court further directed the industries to establish and develop a green belt of 1-5 kms in
width around such industries.
The court appreciated the petitioner Mr. M.C. Mehta for filing a number of PIL and ordered
the Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the costs.
The court directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court.

M. C. MEHTA v. Union Carbide Commission, (1991) 4 SCC 584

On December 1984, there was a leakage of poisonous gas – Methyl Isocynate (MIC) from the
Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located at Bhopal which is a subsidiary of UCC,
U.S.A.
This disaster is described as the world’s worst industrial disaster ad it claimed lives of 2,260
people and caused serious injuries to about 6 lakh of people.
The Government of India, on behalf of the victims filed a suit in U.S District Court, New
York. The U.S District Court dismissed all the suits and petitions an representations on the
ground of forum non-conveniens i.e. the suits can be more conveniently tried in India.
Again the UOI filed this present suit through M.C. Mehta versus UCC in the District Court of
Bhopal claiming 3.3 billion U.S dollars i.e. Rs. 3900 crores as compensation. The District
Court ordered UCC to pay interim relief of 270 million U.S. Dollars i.e. Rs. 350 crore to the
victims.
Aggrieved the UCC filed a civil Revision petition before the High Court at Madhya Pradesh,
which reduced the amount from rs. 350 Crores to Rs. 250 Crores.
Aggrieved both the parties preferred appeals before the Supreme Court on different issues.
Several municipal and international issues were involved in this case for considerations.
Some such issues were:
Whether the Parent Company is liable for the torts of its Subsidiary Company abroad? The
UCC has maintained it is only morally but not legally liable for its actions.
Whether the Home State i.e. USA can be held responsible for the hazardous activities of
UCC’s Subsidiary Company abroad?
Whether the Host State i.e. India responsible for enforcing the safety standards for the
protection of life and environment and the extent of liability to the victims for the
rehabilitation in the event of accidents?
When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court another incident took place in the
Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry of New Delhi. In that case, the Supreme Court
evolved the Principle of Absolute Liability from the 1868 Principle of Absolute Liability.
Keeping that decision in mind the Supreme Court directed the UCC to pay sum of 470
Million U.S. Dollars i.e. Rs. 750 crore towards compensation to the victims for the full and
final settlement in satisfaction of all past, present and future claims and the same was
accepted by both the parties.
The Court by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction quashed all proceedings civil, criminal
etc against the UCC.

Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) v. Union of India , AIR 1988 SC 2187
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors v State of UP & Ors is the first environmental
PIL in India.
RLEK, a voluntary organization, wrote a letter to Supreme Court which was treated as a
petition. The letter disclosed the unauthorized and illegal mining activities carried in the
entire stretch of Doon Valley.
There was reduction in the Green Belt from 70% to 10%.
The reckless mining operations, careless disposal of mine debris and unregulated blasting
operations disturbed the natural water systems and the supply of water for drinking and
irrigation purposes went down.
Further the quarrying operations destroyed the homes of many migratory birds and compelled
the residents of that area to shift from that place.
The Supreme Court acting promptly prohibited the mining operations with a view to
determine if the mines were operated with the safety standards.
The Supreme Court appointed the Bhargava Committee- to assess the total effects of the
mines in the ecology of the area. On the recommendations of the Bhargava Committee, the
court ordered that these operation in such an ecologically sensitive area has to be stopped.
The court further observed that preservation of ecology is a task which not only the States but
also the Citizens must undertake u/A 51 A (g).
The court directed the State to pay Rs. 10,000 to RLEK for their efforts and take steps
towards restoration of the ecology.