Environmental Law

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS)

Section D B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) 2019
 Environmental Law

Table of Contents
04.08.2022 – Environmental Ethics.....................................................................................4

Anthropocene............................................................................................................................4

Environmental Law and Ethics by Alder & Wilkinson..................................................................4

Should we value nature? If Yes, How?........................................................................................4

Question....................................................................................................................................4

Morality for Environment & Nature............................................................................................4

Natural Processes.......................................................................................................................5

Humans as part of nature...........................................................................................................5

Incommensurability...................................................................................................................5

Response to this colonization of resources.................................................................................5

Indian Environmental Movement: Guha.....................................................................................6

Indian Religious Outlook on Environment...................................................................................6

Animal Welfare v. A Nagaraja, 2014 SC.......................................................................................6

Eco-centricity in India...................................................................................................................................6

Mohammad Salim v. State of Uttarakhand.................................................................................6

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................7

08.08.2022 – Environmental Ethics/Morality......................................................................8

Ecological Marxist......................................................................................................................8

Crusading Gandhi.......................................................................................................................8

Torts in General: Questions........................................................................................................8

First Tort for Environment: Negligence.......................................................................................8

Rylands v. Fletcher.....................................................................................................................8

MC Mehta v. Union of India: Oleum Gas Leak.............................................................................9

Reasserting the Absolute Liability.............................................................................................10

18.08.2022 – Environmental Law & Torts.........................................................................11

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 1

 Environmental Law

Chronology of Events................................................................................................................11

Out of Court Settlement...........................................................................................................11

Questions.................................................................................................................................12

22.08.2022 – Environmental Law & Torts (Contd.)............................................................13

Dissenting: Rylands v. Fletcher.................................................................................................13

What is Nuisance?....................................................................................................................13

Public Nuisance is a crime in India............................................................................................13

Definition of Sustainable Development....................................................................................13

Precautionary Principle............................................................................................................14

25.08.2022 – Development of Environmental Jurisprudence in India................................15

Village Something Case.............................................................................................................15

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988): Ganga Case.....................................................................15

Mohanbai v. State, 2011...........................................................................................................16

29.08.2022 – Environmental Law.....................................................................................17

MC Mehta v. Union of India, Taj Trapezium Case, 1997.............................................................17

Robert Environmental Impact of Mathura Refinery or Varadharajan Committee......................17

MC Mehta v. NCT of Delhi (CNG Gas Case)................................................................................17

Delhi Sewage Treatment Plant Case..........................................................................................18

Kamal Nath Case – MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1986...................................................................18

Does Polluter pay in India?.......................................................................................................18

01.09.2022 –....................................................................................................................19

Ground Water: Importance......................................................................................................19

Judicial Decisions concerning Groundwater..............................................................................19

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (2011).................................................19

Church of Gods (Full Gospel) v. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare, 2000..........................................19

Re Noise Pollution v. Union of India, 2005................................................................................20

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 2

 Environmental Law

05.09.2022 – Environmental Regulation (Air & Water Pollution)......................................21

Risk Regulation.........................................................................................................................21

What is Risk?............................................................................................................................21

15.09.2022 - Regimes.......................................................................................................22

Section 25 – Consent Based Regime..........................................................................................22

Control & Command Based Regime..........................................................................................22

Incentive Based Regime............................................................................................................22

Air Act v. Water Act..................................................................................................................22

Air Pollution.............................................................................................................................22

Srikoti Narayana Rao & Ors. v. AP Pollution Control Board & Ors..............................................22

Dalip Singh...............................................................................................................................22

19.09.2022 – Air & Water Act...........................................................................................24

What to Regulate.....................................................................................................................24

How to Regulate.......................................................................................................................24

Criticism...................................................................................................................................24

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 3

 Environmental Law

04.08.2022 – ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Michael Sandel – Moral Compass

Subjectivity in Moral Conduct, dissimilarities in the Moral Code of Conduct.

ANTHROPOCENE

Age of Man. Geological Age in the History of the Earth, part of larger age holoscene.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND ETHICS BY ALDER & WILKINSON

There are four conflicts on which the environmental ethics are based:

1. Environmental Protection v. Economic Development.

2. Moral and Economic Value of Trading v. Environmental Protection.
3. Intergenerational Equity, this generation v. next generation v. previous generation.
4. Different environmental interests, which plants, which species, which sector.
5. Should we protect the environment for human well-being or larger environmental
community?
6. Solutions v. ‘Law of unintended consequences’.

SHOULD WE VALUE NATURE? IF YES, HOW?

 Nature – Instrument of Human Welfare

 Nature – Supporter of Life
 Nature – Indifferent to us and can’t communicate to us.
 Can nature have an intelligible sense independently of human concerns?
 Even if we give animals and natural objects, we are giving them meaning in relation
to OURSELVES.

QUESTION

 If you were the last survivor of the human race, would it be morally acceptable to
enjoy yourself by devastating the forest?

MORALITY FOR ENVIRONMENT & NATURE

 Instrumental Value – Nature is a human resource.

 Existence Value – It only exists even if it serves no other purpose.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 4

 Environmental Law

 Intrinsic Value – Nature is independent of Humans. It again seems to be a figment of

the human mind.

NATURAL PROCESSES

 Natural Processes by definition involve living beings changing their environment and
human beings are merely doing so on a larger scale and more quickly than any other
creature.
 All living things alter natural processes but humans have done so to such an extent
that it is at least possible that we are damaging many natural balances.
 AS PART OF NATURE, WE ARE ENTITLED TO PURSUE OUR OWN GOALS,
AND THAT NATURE MUST TAKE CARE OF ITSELF ARGUING THAT IN THE
PRINCIPLE OUR INTERVENTIONS ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER
NATURAL EVENTS.

HUMANS AS PART OF NATURE

 As an individual, you can take three approaches:

o We can conserve nature

INCOMMENSURABILITY

 Moral Values are not subjective and relative.

 Ethical Values are sometime incommensurate in the sense that each in itself is
objectively valid, but they cannot logically be reconciled with each other because they
are not amenable to ranking on a common scale.
 Environmental Protection and Economic Values are incommensurable.

RESPONSE TO THIS COLONIZATION OF RESOURCES

1. Gandhian Way – Satyagrah.

a. 1987 = “Pluck and Plant” Satyagrah Demonstration. (Would you call it a
counter-colonization response?) The Chipko Satyagrah activists were arrested
for the crime of uprooting 7000 eucalyptus saplings from a forest nursery in
Chamba and planting indigenous broad-leaved species in their stead.
b. Mulshi Satyagrah from 1921 to Sardar Sarovar Dam in 1980s.
c. Chipko Movement.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 5

 Environmental Law

2. Talks about Draft Forest Bill of 1982 – Popular opposition forced some notable
change in forest policy: e.g., abandonment of programmes for clearfelling of natural
forest to replace them with plantations of industrially useful exotic species.

INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT: GUHA

 Material, political, ideological.

o Materials are both natural and economic.
o Political is an action oriented movement: they organize and struggle, skillful
use of media; using environmental rehabilitation to restore degrading villages
and ecosystems. These political groups, however, are barely party-base.
o They are smaller action groups (Pradarshan, Dharna, Jail Bharo Andolan,
Sangarsh Yatra).
o Ideologies are third-world environmentalism v. Western Environmentalism:
Crusading Gandhian: ecological Marxist: Appropriate Technologist.

INDIAN RELIGIOUS OUTLOOK ON ENVIRONMENT

 Recognizing plants animals and natural resources like air and water as gods and
goddesses.
 Using religion to support environmental or animal protection.
 Using religion to deny environmental or animal protection.
 Act of God as a legal justification for extreme weather.

ANIMAL WELFARE V. A NAGARAJA, 2014 SC

 It’s about Jallikattu

 What is Jallikattu?
 Your Views on Jallikattu?

ECO-CENTRICITY IN INDIA

 The Tamilnadu Regulation of Jallikattu (TNRJ) Act, 2009 – Which has since been
declared constitutionally void, was disguised as an Anthropocene legislation enacted
not for the welfare of the animals, unlike the Prevention of Cruelty Act, which is an
eco-centric legislation, enacted to ensure the well-being and welfare of the animals
and to prevent

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 6

 Environmental Law

MOHAMMAD SALIM V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

 Rivers have legal personality.

 One can sue and be sued on behalf of rivers.
 “The rivers Ganga and Yamuna, all their tributaries, streams, every natural water
flowing with flow continuously or intermittently of these rivers, are declared as
juristic/legal persons/living entities, having the status of a legal person with all
corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person in order to preserve and
conserve river Ganga and Yamuna.”

CONCLUSION

John Alder’s distinction is laid out fairly well in both Mohd. Sailm Case and Animal Welfare
Case.

Mohd. Salim case that

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 7

 Environmental Law

08.08.2022 – ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS/MORALITY

ECOLOGICAL MARXIST

 People who prioritize money over the earth and are willing to utilize their funds to
revive the earth

CRUSADING GANDHI

 Protesters and activists –

TORTS IN GENERAL: QUESTIONS

 As a lawyer, where will you generally file a tortious liability case?

 Which statute/law will you apply?
 Your roommate knows you’re asthmatic. One day, while you are sleeping in your
commonly shared room, your roommate starts smoking without caring about you.
This triggers your asthma, you are hospitalized and now you want to file a case
against your roommate. Which Court? Which Law? (Hint: Make it as Big a Case as
possible).

FIRST TORT FOR ENVIRONMENT: NEGLIGENCE

 Donaghue v. Stevenson
o Snail Case
o Duty of Care towards final consumer and neighbours
o Causation
o Damage
o Compensation for Damage

RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

 It was decided by Blackburn J., who delivered the judgement of the Court of
Exchequer Chamber, and the House of Lords, that to succeed in this tort, the claimant
must show:
o That the defendant brought something onto his land.
o That the defendant made “non-natural use” of his land (per Lord Cairns, LC.)
o The thing was something likely to do mischief if escaped.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 8

 Environmental Law

o The thing did escape and cause damage.

 This rule has five exceptions: consent, act of god, statutory requirements, plaintiff’s
own fault, act of a third party (stranger).

MC MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA: OLEUM GAS LEAK

 December 4, 1985 (Exactly a year after Bhopal), A major gas leak of oleum gas took
place from one fo the units of Shriram and this leakage affected a large number of
persons, both amongst the workmen and the public, and according to the petitioner, an
advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Courts died on account of inhalation of Oleum
Gas.
 W.P. No. 12739 of 1985 which has been brought by way of PIL raises some seminal
questions concerning the true scope and ambit of Articles 21 and 32 of the
Constitution, the Principles and Norms for determining the liability of large
enterprises engaged in manufacture and sale of hazardous products, the basis on
which the damages in case of such liability should be quantified.
 Issues
o Jurisdiction
o Article 21 being available against a private entity
o Measure of liability against an enterprise engaged in an hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such
industry, persons die or are injured. Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1966
Law Report 1 Exchequer 265) apply or is there any other principle on which
liability can be determined.
 Sri Ram food as a private Actor.
 American State Action Doctrine, it was also argued before us on behalf of the
applicants that private activity, if supported or controlled or regulated by the State
may get so entwined with governmental activity.
 The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity must be conducted with the highest standards of safety
and if any harm results on account of such activity the enterprise must be absolutely
liable to compensate for such harm irrespective of the fact that the enterprise had
taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its
part.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 9

 Environmental Law

 We would therefore hold that 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 resulting, for
example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise 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-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability
under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

REASSERTING THE ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Negligence: Generally Strict Liability Absolutel Liabilituy

1. Duty of Care Developed by Rylands v. Oleum Gas Leak
2. Breach of Duty Fletcher 1. Hazardous or
3. Causation 1. That the defendant inherently dangerous
4. Damages resulting brought something activity in which it is
out of Breach onto his land. engaged must be
Exceptions: General Tort 2. That the defendant conducted with the
Law Exceptions are made a ‘non-natural highest standards of
available. use of his land’ safety and if any
3. Duty of care to take harm results on
care of activity on account of such
land. activity, the
4. The thing was enterprise must be
something likely to absolutely liable to
do mischief if it compensate for such
escaped and the harm.
thing did actually No Exceptions.
escape and cause
damage.
Five exceptions: Act of
god, statutory
requirements, plaintiff’s
own fault, act of third-
party.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 10

 Environmental Law

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 11

 Environmental Law

18.08.2022 – ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & TORTS

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

1. December 3, 1984: Methyl Isocynate releases from Union Carbide India Limited
(UCIL) Plant in Bhopal during 2 AM to 4 AM.
2. December 4, 1984: Warren Anderson arrested and freed on bail of 2000 Dollars with
promise to return to India.
3. February 19, 1985: Indian Government approached US District Court in New York,
Case dismissed on two grounds. Forums non-conveniens and UCC accepted civil
jurisdiction of Indian Courts. On Appeal US Supreme Court dismissed the case (3-
billion-dollar suit).
4. March 1985: The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 is
passed. Act confers powers on Indian Government to secure claims on behalf of
people.
5. September 1986: The GIO files a suit against UCC in the Bhopal District Court.
District Court orders an interim relief of 350 Crores to be paid by UCC.
6. The Order Dated 4th April, 1988 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby
it is modified the interlocutory order dated 17.12.1987 made by the District Judge and
granted interim compensation of 250 Crores. Both the Union of India and the Union
Carbide Corporation have appealed to this court against the order.
7. December 1, 1987: The CBI files a chargesheet and summons against Warren
Anderson and eleven other accused, including UCC (USA)…

OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT

 For 470 million dollars an overall settlement between the parties covering all
litigations, claims, rights, and liabilities related to and arising out of the disaster. The
Supreme Court through its 1989 decision, gave criminal immunity to Warren
Anderson.
 However, 3/10/1991: Supreme Court of India revoked Criminal Immunity granted to
UCC and all other accused in the Bhopal Gas Leak disaster case in response to review
and writ petitions filed by BGPMUS and others. Union Carbide describes the
Supreme Court of India’s final order on lifting criminal immunity as “unfortunate”.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 12

 Environmental Law

 11/11/1991: Criminal Cases against all the accused including Warren Anderson
revived in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Bhopal.
 07/12/1991: Proclamation. Issued by CJM, Bhopal ordering Warren Anderson – A1,
UCC (USA) – A2, and UCE (Hong Kong) – A11, to present themselves before the
CJM on 01/02/1992.

QUESTIONS

 Do you think criminal charges are valid? For a case that can be resolved through a
civil way, does criminal route become necessary?
 Is Criminal Action way too extreme?
 Should the leaders of US and other developed countries be criminally tried for “ECO-
CIDE”?

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 13

 Environmental Law

22.08.2022 – ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & TORTS (CONTD.)

DISSENTING: RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

 Dramwell B, However, dissenting argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his
land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of
TRESPASS and the commissioning of a NUISANCE.
 What is Nuisance?
 What is Trespass?

WHAT IS NUISANCE?

 It means anything which annoys, hurts, or that which is offensive. Under the Common
Law Principle, the nuisance concerned with unlawful interference with the person’s
right over whole of land or of some right over or in connection with it. But for an
interference to be an actionable nuisance the conduct of the defendant must be
unreasonable.
 Nuisance may be public or private in nature.

PUBLIC NUISANCE IS A CRIME IN INDIA

 Indian Penal Code, s. 268 - A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act
or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or
annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in
the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance
to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
o A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some
convenience or advantage.

DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

 The “official” definition of sustainable development was developed for the first time
in the Brundtland Report in 1987.
 “Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present, without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
 Human Development Index
o Three Components – 1) Income; 2) Health; 3) Education.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 14

 Environmental Law

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

 Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted by the

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 1992, states that:
o “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are
threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to protect
environmental degradation.”

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 15

 Environmental Law

25.08.2022 – DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA

VILLAGE SOMETHING CASE

 The tanneries use about 170 types of chemicals in the chrome tanning processes.
 Nearly 35 Litres of water is used for processing one kilogram of finished leather,
resulting in dangerously enormous quantities of toxic effluents being let out in the
open by the tanning industry.
 350 wells out of total of 467 used for drinking and irrigation purposes have been
polluted. Women and children have to walk miles to get drinking water.
 It is no doubt correct that the leather industry in India has become a major foreign
exchange earner and at present Tamil Nadu is the leading exporter of finished leather
accounting for approximately 80% of the country’s export. Though the leather
industry is of vital importance to the country as it generates foreign exchange and
provides employment avenues it has no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the
environment and pose as a health hazard. It cannot be permitted to expand or even to
continue with the present production unless it tackles by itself the problem of
pollution created by the said industry.
 Holding:
o Pollution Fine of Rs. 10,000/- each on all the tanneries was imposed.
o Closing of tanneries which did not comply.
o Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. M.C. Mehta towards legal fees and others.
o Mr. M.C. Mehta was the Counsel for the Petitioners.

M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA (1988): GANGA CASE

 Kanpur is one of the biggest cities on the banks of river Ganga.

 The case concerned pollution from the tanneries around river Ganga.
 274.50 million litres a day of sewage water was being discharged into the river Ganga
from the city of Kanpur, which was the highest in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
 Sewer Cleaning had never been done systematically in Kanpur and there was
malfunctioning and choking of the city sewerage. Pollution of Water in the river
Ganga was the highest degree at Kanpur, and a large extent of misery, sickness, and
death due to infectious diseases arose out of water supplies. The petitioner filed this

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 16

 Environmental Law

writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation against the public nuisance caused by the
serious pollution of the river Ganga, for protecting the lives of the people using the
Ganga Water.
 The Court further directed that the practice of throwing corpses and semi-burnt
corpses into the river Ganga should be immediately ended. Steps should be taken by
the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and the Police authorities to ensure that the dead
bodies or half-burnt bodies were not thrown into the river Ganga.
 Directed High Court to take into consideration the case for criminal proceedings
against the industrialists.

MOHANBAI V. STATE, 2011

 Whether banning of Idol Immersion is violating the petitioners’ Right to Practice

trade and Profession?
 The petitioners were engaged in the preparation of idols of Hindu Gods and
Goddesses which are sold in the open market. No Chemicals are being used by the
petitioners in preparation of the idols and no toxic colours are used for painting them.
Plaster of Paris, which is the material used for making the idols, is a natural product,
and no chemials are being mixed with it.
 The petitioners have no role to play, insofar as immersion of the idols during religious
festivals are concerned. It is the duty of the local authorities such as the respondent
Municipal Corporation, to ensure that immersion of the Idols does not cause pollution
of the River and other environmental hazards.
 There is no justification in the issuance of the impugned notification by Respondent
No. 2, especially in the absence of any material with regards to the adverse effect
ypon public health and hygiene.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 17

 Environmental Law

29.08.2022 – ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

MC MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA, TAJ TRAPEZIUM CASE, 1997

 It is been listed amongst the world’s 100 most endangered site.

 It is a world heritage site.
 The Foundries, chemical/hazardous industries and refinery at Mathura are the major
sources of damages to the Taj.
o Industrial Refinery Emissions, Brick Kilns, Vehicular traffic and generators
are primarily responsible for yellowing and blackening of the Taj Marble.
o Sulphur Dioxide emitted by refineries when combined with oxygen from Acid
Rain, thus corroding the White Marble.
o Fungal Deterioration is the worst in the inner chamber and the decay and smell
is prevalent in the whole monument.

ROBERT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MATHURA REFINERY OR VARADHARAJAN

COMMITTEE

 There are two power plants using coal

 The emission of Sulphur Dioxide is considerably high.
 There are two thermal power plants, foundries, industries, two railway marshalling
yards and vehicular emissions.
 The air quality around the Taj was taken into consideration and declared to be as
acidic and toxic.
 Two kinds of harm to Taj, corrosion and conversion of marble to Gypsum.
 The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgement in December 1996. The
Apex Court gave various directions including banning the use of coal and coke and
directing the industries to switch over to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

MC MEHTA V. NCT OF DELHI (CNG GAS CASE)

 In 1991, the petition under Art.32 asking the Court to issue directions for closing
down of hazardous industries located in the densely populated areas of Delhi, and for
regulation of air pollution caused by automobiles operating in the area as also the
thermal units generating power for the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 18

 Environmental Law

 Court gave directions for eliminations of leaded petrol from NCT Delhi. Replacement
of all pre-1990 autos and taxis with new vehicles on clean fuels (financial incentives).
 Non-8-year-old buses to ply except on CNG or 01.04.2020 other clean fuels.
 Independent fuel testing labs.

DELHI SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CASE

 About 10 million people living in Delhi and millions of people living along the banks
of river Yamuna were exposed to health hazards from water contamination due to
total absence of sewage treatment plant in many areas of Delhi.
 A time-bound programme was given by the Supreme Court of India to the Delhi
Municipal Corporation for setting up of treatment plant in 16 different localities in
this case.
 MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1986.

KAMAL NATH CASE – MC MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH, 1986

 In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Span Motel, owned by the family members of Shri
Kamal Nath, Minister of Environment and Forests, Government of India diverted the
Course of river Deas to beautify the Motel and also encroached upon some forest
land. The apex Court ordered the management of the Span Motel to hand over forest
land to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and remove all sorts of encroachments.
 The Court delivered a landmark judgement and established principle of exemplary
damages for the first time in India. The Court said that polluter must pay to reverse
the damage caused by his act and imposed a fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs on the Span Motel
as exemplary damages. The Supreme Court of India recognized Polluter Pays
Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.

DOES POLLUTER PAY IN INDIA?

 How would you evaluate the Bhopal Gas Tragedy?

 What are the gaps with Polluter Pays Principle in India?
 Can you relate it with Traffic Rules in India? Has an increase in the amount of fine
changed anything?

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 19

 Environmental Law

01.09.2022 –

GROUND WATER: IMPORTANCE

 India relies heavily in ground water.

 India is the largest user of groundwater in the world.
 Groundwater is protected from Global Warming an Warming trends that may affect
other water sources due to their hydro-geological conditions.
 Ground Water Contamination from anthropogenic sources, e.g., sewage disposal,
agriculture, industry, mining, tanneries, etc. have emerged as a serious threat not only
to human health but also intensive to ground water.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS CONCERNING GROUNDWATER

 MC Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1997) – Ground water falls within the purview of
public domain and hence, the responsibility lies on the central government…
 “The Polluter pays principle demands that the financial..

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION V. UNION OF INDIA (2011)

 The Supreme Court applied the principle of restitution, unjust enrichment and
compound interest because it became a matter of legal reform, having a crucial effect
on the administration of justice.
 The Hon’ble Court emphasized on the implementation of the directions as the present
applicant had made all possible efforts to avoid the compliance of the directions
issued in 1997.

The court remarked that such an act amounts to an abuse of the court’s proceeding. Therefore
the applicant-industry was directed to pay Rs. 37.385 Crores along with compound interest at
12% p.a., from the date of the earlier order in 1997 till the same is paid or recovered with
other costs which would be utilized for carrying out remedial measures in village Bichchri
and the surrounding areas of the state.

CHURCH OF GODS (FULL GOSPEL) V. KKR MAJESTIC COLONY WELFARE, 2000

 The questions involved in this appeal are that in a country having multiple religions
and numerous communities or sects, whether a particular community or sect of that
community can claim right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion?

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 20

 Environmental Law

Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and

loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or tranquillity of neighbourhood should be
permitted? Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by
disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice-
amplifiers or beating of drums. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of
religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having
their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other
activities cannot be permitted.

RE NOISE POLLUTION V. UNION OF INDIA, 2005

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 21

 Environmental Law

05.09.2022 – ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (AIR & WATER POLLUTION)

RISK REGULATION

 “We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred
percent of the hazards of vicissitudes of life…” - Franklin D. Roosevelt, speech upon
the signing of the Social Security Act, delivered August 14, 1935.

WHAT IS RISK?

 UNDP defines risk as the probability of

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 22

 Environmental Law

15.09.2022 - REGIMES

SECTION 25 – CONSENT BASED REGIME

 State and Central Pollution Control Board – Water Pollution Act

CONTROL & COMMAND BASED REGIME

 Air & Noise

 Agreed and permissible framework.

INCENTIVE BASED REGIME

 Incentivization of Tax Reductions.

AIR ACT V. WATER ACT

 Preamble drawn from International Law

 Water Act Preamble does not mention any international law but mentions that it is
sourced in Constitutional Law.
 Water Act talks about consent-based regime while air act does not provide for consent
and conditions for consent regime.

Air Act Water Act

 Preamble drawn from International  Water Act Preamble does not
Law mention any international law but
 Air act does not provide for consent mentions that it is sourced in
and conditions for consent regime. Constitutional Law.
 Not dealt with point sources  Water Act talks about consent-based
regime.
 Point Sources defined clearly in the
Act.
AIR POLLUTION

 S. 2(a) – Definition of Air Pollutant

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 23

 Environmental Law

SRIKOTI NARAYANA RAO & ORS. V. AP POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS.

DALIP SINGH

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 24

 Environmental Law

19.09.2022 – AIR & WATER ACT

WHAT TO REGULATE

 Price
 Quantity
 Entry & Exit
 Other Variables

HOW TO REGULATE

 PCBs
o Permitting
o Trade Measures
o Financial Instruments
o PCB has to go through NGT; Would not engage in Litigation
 Consent-based Regime – Allow, set standards, investigate, show-cause
(if allowed, repeat process), Shut-down.
 MOEFEC
 NEPA
 NGT
o Tribunal
o Quasi-judicial (Statutory Authority)

CRITICISM

 Boards
 Financial Constraints

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 25

 Environmental Law

22.09.2022 – ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986

SALIENT FEATURES

 Based on 1972 UN Conference

 [IMP] Environmental Impact Assessment

STAGES OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (EC) PROCESS FOR NEW PROJECTS

 Stage 1: Screening
 Stage 2: Scoping
o Conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment and preparing a draft report.
 Stage 3: Public Consultation
 Stage 4: Appraisal

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 26

 Environmental Law

06.10.2022 – FORESTS ACT

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES V. PERUMATTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KERLA HC

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 27

 Environmental Law

17.10.2022 – NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

CHAPTER III: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL

 Article 14
 Schedule I
o The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
o The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.
o The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
o The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1981.
o The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
o The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
o The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

POWER OF THE COURT: SECTION 15

Section 15: Relief, Compensation and Restitution (what can NGT do)

(1) The Tribunal may by an order provide

a. Relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental
damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including
accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
b. For restitution of property damaged;
c. For restitution of the environment for such area or areas,

as the Tribunal may think fit.

(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or
payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991(6 of 1991).

SCHEDULE II OF NGT ACT – HEADS UNDER WHICH COMPENSATION OR RELIEF FOR

DAMAGE MAY BE CLAIMED

Limitation to the schedule –

 Inter-generational Damages – If the Medical Expenses in 1984 were Rs. 20k and in
2022 are Rs. 20L, The parity between the occurrence of the Incident and the

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 28

 Environmental Law

Continuous Claim of events, inflation rate, unjust enrichment, etc. are also limitations
of this particular schedule.

COMBINED APPROACH

 Administrative Adjudication + Judicial Adjudication

o Administrative: Initial Decision  Reconsideration of Initial Decision 
Judicial Review.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY

 Mainly Appellate Authority.

 Only to counter orders of an executive.

SECTION 16: TRIBUNALS TO HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION

LIABILITY TO PAY RELIEF OR COMPENSATION IN CERTAIN CASES

 Where death of, or injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any
property or environment has resulted from an accident or the

SECTION 20: TRIBUNAL TO APPLY CERTAIN PRINCIPLES

the tribunal shall, while passing any order or decision

WHO CAN FILE U/S 16

who can file an application for appellate jurisdiction

SECTION 22: APPEAL TO SC

any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the tribunal, may, file an appeal to
the supreme court, within 90 days from the date of communication of the award, decision or
order of the tribunal to him, on any one or more grounds specified in the section 100 of the
CPC. Provided that the supreme court may, entertain any appeal after the expiry of 90 days, if
it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal

PRAFULLA SAMANTRA V. UNION OF INDIA

 Appeal was filed against Order of the MOEFCC imposing Additional conditions to
the Environmental Clearances

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 29

 Environmental Law

POSCO IS A JAPANESE COMPANY

 As per the MoU, the Government of Orissa agreed to facilitate and use its best efforts
to enable the Project Proponent (POSCO) to obtain a ‘no objection’ through the State
Pollution Control Board in the minimum time possible. It is also mentioned that the
Project Proponent will conduct a Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment (for Short
EIA)…

PROVISIONS OF EIA NOTIFICATION 2006, THE PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF EC IS AS

UNDER

 Preparation of an EIA Report after stipulation of Terms of Conditions for the Project
by the EAC (Scoping)
 Notice by the State Pollution Control Board for Mandatory PH to be published in at
least two local newspapers (public consultations)
 Access to Executive Summary and EIA (Public Consultation)
 Conducting Public hearing in a manner which ensures the widest possible
participation (Public Consultation).
 Detailed Scrutiny of the EIA Report and proceedings of the public consultation
(Appraisal).
 Grant of Approval or rejection of Application.

4 STEPS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 Screening,
 scoping,
 public notification/consultation and
 appraisal (post appraisal – monitoring and management)

2ND ISSUE

None of the procedures were followed as required under the law. The committee appointed
for the review of the original ECs granted, had submitted a fractured report.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

the project proponent submitted schedule II application, questionnaire and rapid EIA/EMP
report for consideration of proposals as perthe provisions of the EIA Notifications 1994 and
2006. PH for the project was also held on 15.4.2007 as per the prescribed procedure at the

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 30

 Environmental Law

relevant point of time. The District Magistrate appears to have drawn the summary at the end
of the PH proceedings and made it known to the public. Thus, it is clear that

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) VS THE CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU POLLUTION AIR 2013

 Vide order dated 29th March, 2013, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for
short 'the Respondent Board'), in exercise of its powers under Section 31-A of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (for short the 'Air Act'), directed
closure of M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (for short the 'appellant-company') with
immediate effect. On that very day, it also, by a separate communication, again in
exercise of its powers under Section 31-A of the Air Act, directed the Superintending
Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thoothukudi, to disconnect the electricity
supply to the appellant company. The correctness and legality of this order have been
challenged by the appellant-company, primarily on the ground that it is arbitrary,
discriminatory and has been passed in an undue haste without proper application of
mind, non-grant of appropriate opportunity and by taking into consideration irrelevant
materials, while ignoring the substantive and relevant considerations. It is also stated
that the order is based upon no scientific study or data.
 The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of copper cathodes and copper
rods. These are manufactured by a process - smelting copper concentrate - which is
the main raw material (copper ore), containing approximately 30% copper, 30%
sulphur, 30% iron and balance 10% as other impurities. The copper concentrate along
with other raw materials is fed into the smelter to produce copper anode, which is
copper of 98.6% purity, which then is refined to produce copper cathode i.e. copper of
99.9% purity. From this copper cathode, copper rods are manufactured. During the
smelting process, the sulphur contained in the copper concentrate is converted into
sulphur dioxide (SO2), which is collected and sent to sulphuric acid plants through a
closed duct system. Thereafter, the SO2 gas is cleaned in the gas cleaning plant
comprising gas cooling tower, scrubber system and wet electrostatic precipitators. The
cleaned SO2 gas is then oxidized using vanadium pentoxide catalyst to form sulphur
tri-oxide (SO3) gas which is absorbed in water and converted to sulphuric acid. The
residual gas from the sulphuric acid plant is further treated in the tail gas scrubber to
meet the prescribed environmental standards and then routed through the stack.
Emissions of SO2 from the stacks are being monitored by online SO2 analysers.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 31

 Environmental Law

 The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (for short the 'NEERI')
had submitted a report in the year 2005 showing that the emission levels of the plant
of the appellant- company were within the stipulated limits while some emissions did
not conform to the standards prescribed. It had also made some recommendations.
Regarding the solid waste released out of slag in the plant site, the Central Pollution
Control Board had taken a view in its communication dated 17th November, 2003 to
the Respondent-Board that the slag was non-hazardous. The NEERI, in its report had
indicated as many as 30 deficiencies and had pointed out what the appellant-company
was required to do to rectify the deficiencies. On these recommendations, the
Respondent Board had given 30 directions out of which, according to the appellant-
company, it had completed all the 30 improvements/measures. However, in the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited v.
Union of India & Ors.[ (2013) 5 SCALE 202], it has been noticed that the appellant-
company had complied with 29 of the 30 directions. Thus, according to the appellant-
company, its plant was running without any violations and with the approval and
sanction of the competent authorities.
 Notice –
o Hence, you are directed to show-cause within 3 days from the date of receipt
of this notice as to why penal action for offences punishable under Section 37
read with Section 31A of the 'Act' should not be initiated against you as
occupier of the unit and also to show-cause as to why directions under Section
31A of the 'Act' shall not be issued for closure of the unit, stoppage of power
supply, water supply etc. to the unit.
o It is informed that non-receipt of any reply within the prescribed period will be
construed that you have no satisfactory explanation to offer for the above said
contravention and action will be taken on the merits in accordance with
law...."
 There was no evidence of the fact that the alleged throat irritations were caused by gas
emitted from the appellant company's plant. In fact, the notice dated 24th March,
2013 issued by the Collector had categorically stated that the report in regard to gas
emitted from the appellant company's plant was being examined. If that be so, then
the question of holding the appellant-company responsible for alleged complaints of
throat irritation etc. did not arise. Moreover, not a single case was reported in any of

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 32

 Environmental Law

the hospitals and that is the best proof of the fact that the allegations lacked
verisimilitude.
 Decision
o Held Sterlite Industries in violation and environmental and air norms;
scientific evidence to support the same.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 33

 Environmental Law

27.10.2022 – INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

1972 – STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE

1984 TO 1987 – BRUNDTLAND COMMISSION

1992 – RIO SUMMIT

 Laid foundation for Climate Change Negotiations around the World

 CBDR – Common But Differentiated Responsibilities according to Respective
Capabilities.

1997 – KYOTO PROTOCOL – ANNEX COUNTRIES

 Based on Climate Change Negotiations.

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 34

 Environmental Law

31.10.2022 – EMISSION CONTROL

Aadithya Aravindh (19 JGLS) 35