CASE LAWS

• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum

• On precautionary principle.
• The Court mentioned the Rio summit and affirmed the principle of Sustainable
Development as well as its salient features like " Precautionary Principle" and "Polluter
Pays" .
• PP in the context of municipal law – lack of scientific evidence cannot be used as an
excuse, government authorities should take measures to prevent and attack causes of
pollution, onus on actor/developer to show action is environmentally benign.
• Polluter Pays – absolute liability to compensate not only victims of environmental
degradation but also costs for reversing the effects of pollution.
• SC order – tanneries shut down, green benches to be set up, fine imposed, pollution
control devices to be set up etc. etc.
• Environment Act – authority to be constituted – to implement both PP and PPP. Loss
of Ecology (Prevention and Payments of Compensation) Authority set up.
• T Damodar Rao
• Early case – no mention of imp environmental cases.
• Area of law – use of private land for public purpose, intergenerational equity.
• This is the first case where the right to a clean environment was linked to Article 21 by
the courts of law.
• Emphasised on the protection of natural resources for the present and future generations
and how the same must reflect in economic development and common law.
• Development Plan – not followed by Municipal Corporation – sold it to LIC to build
houses whereas earmarked for park.
• The private law doctrine of ownership allows the owner of a land to choose the manner
of using and enjoying his land. This, however, must be subject to preservation of the
environment and prevention of pollution for the collective communal good. Reference
to Stockholm Declaration, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Article 51-A(g) and
Article 48A - State and citizens’ obligation to protect the environment and safeguard
wildlife, forests, etc.
• Under common law, LIC and the Income Tax department have the ownership right to
build residential properties within the land. However, such ownership right is curtailed
by a statutory restriction under the developmental plan.
• Subhash Kumar
• On the Water Act and contamination of water from steel plants.
• Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a Writ directing
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and West Bokaro Collieries to stop the discharge of
sludge/slurry from their washeries into the Bokaro River.
• Not fit for drinking or irrigation – land also being contaminated. Health of people being
affected. Most arguments based on the Water Act.
• Central arguments – no discharge of affluents taking place at all. Under Water Act
sanction was obtained and prior studies were done.
• On the receipt of the notice of the instant writ petition, the Board carried out an
inspection of the settling tanks, and found that construction of all four ponds was
 complete and no discharge from washeries was polluting the river, except for negligible
seepage from the embankment
• Company has followed all Board directions.
• Petitioner did for personal interest – to collect slurry and sell, he was denied, so he filed
a case.
• A petition for the prevention of pollution of river water is maintainable as it violates
Article 21, but in order to take recourse under Art. 32, the Petitioner should be
genuinely interested in protecting society.
• KM Chinappa
• Sustainable development, liabilities for non-compliance, Obligations under
international conventions (Stockholm Declaration, World Charter, Convention on
Biological Diversity etc), Wildlife Protection Act.
• The word "environment" brings within its ambit "hygienic atmosphere and ecological
balance." Duty of the State and every citizen to maintain a hygienic environment.
• (a) Criminal liabilities: Prosecution by regulatory agencies has increased. Private
prosecution is also a possibility. Fines are the normal penalty, though in a number of
cases sentences of imprisonment have been imposed. Maximum fine levels have risen
in recent years. (b) Administrative sanctions: Variation, suspension or revocation of a
licence. These steps may lead to the closure of a plant. (c) Clean up costs: clean up after
a pollution incident and receive the cost from the polluter or (in some cases) the
occupier. (d) Civil liability: Toxic torts. Many environmental actions rest upon strict
liability. (e) Adverse publicity: Publicity attracted due to infringements may be as costly
as direct costs.
• Stockholm Declaration – In developing countries, most environmental problems are
caused by underdevelopment. The Declaration suggests avoiding massive/irreversible
harm to the environment and striving for achieving a better life for the current and future
generations.
• World Charter 1982 – living in harmony with nature, life depends on the uninterrupted
functioning of natural systems that supply energy and nutrients.
• Brundtland Commission 1987 – The right to live - fundamental right to an environment
adequate for the health and well being of human beings. Sustainable Development.
• Convention on Biological Diversity – Vital to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes
of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity at source. Should be in-situ
conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats. (a) Introduce procedures mandating
EIA for projects that would adversely affect biodiversity to minimize these effects.
Allow for public participation in these.
• Sustainable development is a policy and strategy for continued economic and social
development without detriment to the environment and natural resources on the quality
of which continued activity and further development depend. Duty owed to future
generations.
• Duty is cast upon the Government under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to
protect the environment and the two salutary principles which govern the law of
environment are: (i) the principles of sustainable development and (ii) the precautionary
principle
• : Section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act rules out non-forest activities, and as per
the 2000 order it is clear that dereservation of forests, sanctuaries and national parks
 was prohibited. Therefore, the court accepted the time-period proposed by the Central
Empowered Committee and allowed mining for 4 years, but not beyond that. This is
subject to fulfilling the other conditions laid out by the Committee (restoration
plan/compensation etc).
• As wasobserved by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors.
MANU/SC/1007/1997 : (1997)1SCC388 , our legal system based on English Common
Law includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the
trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment.
Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and
ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the
natural resources. These resources meant for public use can not be converted into
private ownership.
• Excluding any land from the ambit of the order not allowed. de-reservation of forests,
sanctuaries and national parks was prohibited. Therefore, exclusion of company's land
in terms of the Notification under Section 35(4) of the Act though same was being used
for mining by the company, was not in order to that extent.
• whether it is a case of first grant or renewal following exercise of option by the lessee,
the compliance of Section 2 of the Conservation Act is necessary as a condition
precedent
• Essar Oil case
• Can pipelines carrying crude oil be permitted to go through the Marine National Park
and Sanctuary and if so, has Essar Oil Ltd., (referred to hereafter as the appellant) in
fact been so permitted?
• Acts involved – Wildlife Protection Act, Forest Act and Environment Act.
• National Parks delineation come under WPA. WPA, S2(37) defines wildlife - this
includes any animal, bees, butterflies, crustacea, fish and moths; and aquatic or land
vegetation which form part of any habitat.
• Section 29 WPA – it prohibits any destruction of wildlife or habitat of a wildlife within
areas designated as wildlife sanctuaries or national parks. Permit can be given by the
Chief Wildlife Warden.
• Forest Act – Central Government approval required for any non-forest activities in
forest areas.
• EPA (reflects the Stockholm Declaration 1972) – in this case it was Category 1 CRZ.
• Argued that Section 29 requires the satisfaction of the State Government as a
prerequisite for a grant of permit by the Chief Conservator only in respect of the
destruction, exploitation or removal of any wildlife from a sanctuary and not in respect
of the destruction or damage of the habitat of any wild animal or deprivation of any
wildlife of its habitat within such sanctuary. Even for the first class of cases, permit can
be granted if it leads to improvement of wildlife.
• Sections 35(4) and 35(7) which completely prohibit any non-forest activity within the
national park where the prohibition was more stringent than the prohibition in respect
of sanctuaries under Section 24(2)(1)and 33(a). Given the nature of the prohibition, it
is submitted that it was inconceivable that the laying and maintenance of pipelines could
at all be permitted in a national park.
• Interpreted in the bg of the Stockholm Declaration (natural resources must be
safeguarded, forest conservation including wildlife must be prioritised).
• The phrase, as has been rightly contended by the appellant, does not relate to
prohibitions (b) and (c) but only relates to destruction, exploitation or removal of
wildlife prohibited under (a). There are no allegations regarding destruction of wildlife
in the present case. Thus, there is no need for proposed activities to result in the
betterment of wild life before it can be allowed for activities related to habitat covered
by (b) and (c). But permits cannot be given indiscriminately, state has to see if
destruction of habitat would lead to destruction of wildlife as well.
• The CRZ notifications quoted earlier issued under the EPA in 1991 and 2001 clearly
allowed the laying of pipelines across ecologically sensitive areas such as national
parks/marine parks and sanctuaries. The laying of pipelines is one of the exceptions to
the general bar against any construction in CRZ-1 areas.
• Before according its approval to the grant of any permit under Sections 29 or 35, the
State Government should consider whether the damage in respect of the proposed
activity is reversible or not. If it is irreversible it amounts to destruction and no
permission may be granted unless there is positive proof of the betterment of the lot of
the wild life.
• Proposal to be published in public. Comments to be called.
• Given the prolonged and in depth scrutiny of the possible damage which could be
caused by the laying of the pipelines by the appellant and the stringent conditions
imposed to obviate such possible damage, and the opinion of the expert bodies, we see
no reason to interfere with the grant of permission under the WPA. As far as the
appellant is concerned however the way is now clear to proceed with the project in
accordance with the permissions granted to it under the WPA, FCA and EPA.
• Delhi Development Authority v. Rajendra Singh
• Relief sought: essentially situating the commonwealth games away from the Yamuna
floodplain
• Though there is no statutory definition for "riverbed" and "floodplain" from the statute,
the dictionary meaning of the same is as under: "Riverbed" has been defined as the area
over which the river flows. In the Thames Conservators Case [1897] 2 QB 335 at 337
it was held that the word riverbed denotes that portion of the river which in the ordinary
or regular course of nature is covered by the waters of the river
• "Floodplain'" - Land adjacent to rivers, which, because of its level topography, floods
when river overflows. [Black's Law dictionary, 6th Edn., p.641] It is also been defined
as `a low, flat area in either side of a river that can accommodate large amounts of water
during a flood, lessening flood damage further downstream' [Fredd Michaels,
`Dictionary of Environment Studies'] In view of the literal meaning and in the light of
the clarification by NEERI in their affidavit dated 29.01.2008, the site in question is
neither a "floodplain" nor a "riverbed", hence contrary arguments of the writ petitioners
before the High Court and in this Court and the ultimate conclusion of the Division
Bench for appointment of a fresh Committee cannot be sustained.
• We reiterate that the delay rules apply to PILs also and if there is no proper explanation
for the delay, PILs are liable to be summarily dismissed on account of delay. In the case
on hand, it is not in dispute that both the petitioners though claiming that they are very
much conversant with environment and ecology, approached the High Court only in
the middle of 2007, hence on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petitions were
liable to be dismissed.
• MC Mehta (Absolute Liability)
• Oleum gas leaked from Shree Ram Fertilizers
• On Art. 32 (PIL) – Procedure being merely a hand-maiden of justice it should not stand
in the way of access to justice to the weaker sections of Indian humanity and therefore
where the poor and the disadvantaged are concerned who are barely eking out a
miserable existence with their sweat and toil and who are victims of an exploited society
without any access to justice, this Court will not insist on a regular writ petition and
even a letter addressed by a public spirited individual or a social action group acting
pro bono publico would suffice to ignite the jurisdiction of this Court. We wholly
endorse this statement of the law in regard to the broadening of locus standi and what
has come to be known as epistolary jurisdiction.
• SP Gupta and Bandua Mukti Morcha cited
• Power is not only injunctive but also remedial in scope provides relief against a breach
of the fundamental right already committed. If the Court were powerless to issue any
direction, order or writ in cases where a fundamental right has already been violated,
Article 32 would be robbed of all its efficacy, because then the situation would be that
if a fundamental right is threatened to be violated, the Court can injunct such violation
but if the violator is quick enough to take action infringing the fundamental right, he
would escape from the net of Article 32.
• Control is not exercised by the Government in relation to the internal management
policies of the Company. However, the control is exercised on all such activities of
Shriram which can jeopardize public interest. Functional control is of special
significance as it is the potentiality of the fertilizer industry to adversely affect the
health and safety of the community and its being impregnated with public interest which
perhaps dictated the policy decision of the Government to ultimately operate this
industry exclusively and invited functional control.
• Historical context, in which the doctrine of State action evolved in the United States is
irrelevant for our purpose especially since we have Article 15(2) in our Constitution. It
is not correct to say that in India once a corporation is deemed to be ‘authority’, it would
be subject to the constitutional limitation of fundamental rights in the performance of
all its functions and that the appellation of ‘authority’ would stick to such corporation,
irrespective of the functional context.
• 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
• Measure of compensation in the kind of cases referred to in the preceding paragraph
must be co-related to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such
compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the
enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable. But in the present
case the court did not order outrightly to Shriram to give compensation because the
court had not cleared it there that whether it comes within the definition of State
mentioned in Article 12. This question whether it is a part of the State or not will decide
how much the industry can be subjected to the provisions of Article 21.
• Kanpur Tanneries case (MC Mehta)
• Area of Law: Liability for Environmental Damage (S.3, 9, 15 of EPA), Water Pollution,
(S.16, 17 and 24) Power of Court to issue directions for Public Nuisance.
• If some time is given, to them to establish the pre-treatment plants they would do so.
Would not be possible to install secondary treatment plants as that would involve
enormous expenditure which the tanneries themselves would not be able to meet. In the
event of their not completing the construction on of the ‘primary treatment plans as
approved by the State Board (respondent 8) and bringing them into operation within
the period of six months the said tanneries will stop carrying on their business.
• Primary treatment establishments to be set up – tanneries who cannot set them up due
to financial reasons do not deserve to function.
• Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
• The respondents are agriculturists based in Karnataka who filed a writ petition under
Article 226 with a prayer that the appellant be refrained from converting the lands to be
acquired from them for any industrial or other purpose, and to retain the lands for their
use for grazing cattle.
• Justice Bhandari is of the view that before acquisition of the land, the appellant must
carry out necessary exercise regarding the impact of development on ecology and
environment. Development and environment have to go hand in hand. It should be made
mandatory for the allottee to obtain necessary clearance for the project from the
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the Department of Ecology and
Environment before execution of the agreement. [only relevant part of the judgement
that isn’t a rehash of prior cases]
• Lafarge Umiam Mining
• Areas of Law - Environment Protection Act, 1986, Section 3; Forest Conservation Act,
1980 (Act of 1980 in the brief) Section 2, 3; Mines and Minerals Act, Section 5;
National Forest Policy, 1988
• The EIA Notification of 1994 was promulgated by a conjoint reading of Section 3(1),
3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment
Protection Rules, 1986 which prohibited the expansion of any activity listed in
Schedule-I of the notification without prior clearance from the central government. The
1994 notification was modified in 1997 to prescribe the procedure for public hearing
and composition of public hearing panels.
• The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests submitted that the project proponent be
allowed to remove the already broken limestone from the site and that the project
proponent may be directed to apply for forest clearance under the 1980 Act for the non-
broken up part of the leased area.
• Relying primarily on the NEHU Report of 1997 and Rapid EIA Report of 2000, which
describe the land as amenable to the project, the court concluded that the project on the
said land was permissible.
• Thus, under the above circumstances, we are satisfied that the parameters of
intergenerational equity are satisfied and no reasonable person can say that the
impugned decision to grant Stage - I forest clearance and revised environmental
clearance stood vitiated on account of non-application of mind by MoEF. On the
contrary, the facts indicate that the MoEF has been diligent. That, MoEF has taken
requisite care and caution to protect the environment and in the circumstances, we
 uphold the stage-I forest clearance and the revised environmental clearance granted by
MoEF. Thus, mining activities by the petitioner stands allowed.
• National Forest Policy, 1988: The Court upheld that the far-reaching principles of the
National Forest Policy, 1988 (which until now has been relegated to the back burners
as a paper tiger policy) must govern the grant of forest clearances under the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 . The principal aim of National Forest Policy, 1988 is to ensure
environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance, it further mandates that
the derivation of direct economic benefit must be subordinate to this principal aim.The
Court noted that, to date, there has been no mechanism available to implement it.
However, the Court has now made it mandatory for decision-making bodies to consider
the provisions of the National Forest Policy, 1988 before granting project approvals.
• Bicchri case (Indian Environmental Legal Council)
• Area of Law: Polluter Pays Principle (introduced for the first time in India in this case);
Constitution — Articles 21, 48A, 51A; PIL — Art. 12; EPA — Sections 3, 5; Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Sections 24(1), 25(1) [pre and post
amendment], 33A; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution), 1981; Hazardous Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 — only for treatment of hazardous waste
purposes
• Combined manufacture of H acid has given rise to 2400 – 2500 MT of iron and gypsum
based sludge, which was discarded untreated. Aquifers and sub-terrain supply of water
polluted, soil unfit for cultivation.
• Polluter Pays Principle — This must be applied since “the incident involved deliberate
release of untreated acidic process wastewater and negligent handling of water sludge,
knowing fully well the implication of such acts” (NEERI Report)
• Compensation to be paid. First for the loss of damage caused (Rs. 342.8l crores).
Second for the remedial cost (Rs. 37.385 crores). This must be imposed on management
of the industry due to two principles: (a) Polluter Pays Principle (b) Doctrine of
Strict/Absolute Liability
• Even if the chemical industries are not ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12, thereby
a writ petition not being applicable to the same, the court can nonetheless direct the
Central Government to recover cost/compensation as a remedial measure under
Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment Protection Act. Therefore, the power to adopt
remedial measures and give directions includes the power to impose cost of remedial
measures on the offending industry. It allows them to utilise the amount so recovered
for carrying out remedial measures.
• Applied the rule of absolute liability in the Oleum Gas Leak Case [Shriram Fertiliser]
— Absolute Liability. Since the rule was formulated and applied by the SC in that case,
it may be done here also:
• Principle 16, Rio Declaration — National authorities should endeavour to promote the
internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into
account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution,
with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and
investment.
• Brief reference of Air Act and Water Act
• 2012 Review of Bicchri Case
• Directions Initial cost of Rs. 37.385 crores plus compound interest must be paid to the
court for remedying the environmental damage caused. Rs. 20l crores to be paid for
carrying out remedial measures in Bicchri village and surrounding areas Note —
compensation awarded for dishonest litigation. The case does not mention any given as
damages to the villagers for the environmental pollution caused.
• Can damages be awarded in a PIL? Reliance placed on MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath
(2000) by the petitioner - The powers of this court under Article 32 are not restricted
and it can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition. - In addition to damages, the
person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so
that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner.
• State of HP v. Ganesh Mill Products
• On inter-generational equity
• Ganesh Wood Products filed a writ petition against the decision of the Government of
the State of Himachal Pradesh to refuse the establishment of Katha factories in the State.
The Government submitted that such establishment would lead to indiscriminate felling
of khair trees which would have a deep and adverse effect upon the environment and
ecology of the State. The raw material available in the State, namely the khair trees, for
manufacturing katha was not sufficient to sustain the proposed industries. The High
Court allowed the petition.
• The petitioners had argued that that after the introduction of the New Industrial Policy
(Liberalisation Policy) and the notifications issued in that behalf by the Government of
India, a citizen of this country has an unquestioned and an absolute right to establish a
small-scale industry at any time, at any place and of whatever capacity he may choose.
Katha is not an industry is not governed by I.D.R.Act, 1951 and hence no licence or
permission is necessary from the authorities under the said Act for establishing a katha
factory.
• The Court recognised that IGE as an integral part of the doctrine of sustainable
development and the environmental law of India, and that the Courts must keep in mind
that the present generation no right to imperil the safety and well-being of the next
generation or the generations to come thereafter and that public interest would be
prejudiced if the Court allowed the setting up of these manufacturing units in the State,
especially when the quantity of raw material is not enough to meet the demand.
• The obligation of sustainable development required that a proper assessment should be
made of the forest wealth and the establishment of industries based on forest produce
should not only be restricted accordingly but their working should also be monitored
closely to ensure that the required balance was not disturbed. In terms of forest wealth
and environment, it also did not make a difference if the trees to be used came from
private forests or from Government forests. In conclusion, the Court remitted the
matters to the High Court for a fresh disposal of the writ petitions and restrained the
factory units from taking any further steps towards setting up the units pending the final
orders by the High Court.
• MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath
• Area of Law: Public v. General Public, Public Trust Doctrine, Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 [s. 2],
• Management has by their illegal constructions and interference with the natural flow of
river Beas degraded the environment. The Resort interfered with the natural flow of the
river by laying to block the natural relief/spill channel of the river.
• The notion that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain
their natural characteristic is finding its way into the law of the land.
• Roman theory of Doctrine of Public Trust: Certain common properties like rivers, sea-
shore, forests and air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and
unimpeded use of the general public. Under Roman law, these resources were either
owned by no one (Res Nullius) or by every one in common (Res Communis). This
came to be adopted in the English common law.
• Three restrictions are imposed on governmental authority under this doctrine. ○ The
Property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be
held available for use by the general public. ○ The property may not be sold, even for
a fair cash equivalent. ○ The property must be maintained for particular types of uses
• The public v. general public debate came from the Mono Lake case. It is essentially the
right of a public of an area to access and use the resource v. the right of the general
public of a larger area (usually a country) to use, preserve and conserve the resource.
Public interest won in this case because it best reflected the values of the public trust
(ecological preservation and recreation). General public interests can also prevail (eg:
Konkan Railways case).
• Indian legal system based on English common law includes the public trust doctrine as
part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by
nature meant for public use and enjoyment, and is legally obligated to protect them.
These resources cannot be converted into private ownership. This is a blanket
prohibition except when the courts find it necessary in good faith, for the public good
and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.
• Coming to the facts of the present case, large area of the bank of river Beas which is
part of protected forest has been given on a lease purely for commercial purposes to the
Motels. We have no hesitation in holding that the Himachal Pradesh Government
committed patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the
Motel management.
• Intellectual Forums Tirupati
• The development of towns focuses only on the economic growth of the people by
ignoring the importance and primacy attached to the protection of environment and the
production of valuable resources that is freshwater resources.
• The court first relied on the Doctrine of Public Trust, and referring to the MC Mehta v.
Kamal Nath Case, observed that the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust
cannot abdicate the natural resource and convert them into private ownership or
commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the
environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for
private, commercial or any other use unless the Courts find it necessary, in good faith,
for the public and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.
• Subsequently, the Court went into the concept of Sustainable Development, and
referring to its own judgement in the Essar Oil Case, observed that there need not
necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment
on the other. The objective of all laws on the environment should be to create harmony
 between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other. The court
held that merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough to sanction
the destruction of local ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a
principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental
needs which the respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the
appellants allege.
• The Court finally went into the concept of "Inter-Generational Equity", observing that
the environment is viewed more as a resource basis for the survival of the present and
future generations. The court further held that all such principles as stated above,
including especially the "Inter-Generational Equity Principle", should in all cases of
environmental law be considered carefully and applied in order to reach a just decision.
• The court, after taking into account all these principles of law, and considering the
competing claims of environment and the need for housing, disposed of the appeals
with the directions, among others, that no further constructions was allowed to be made,
each house already constructed had to provide structure for roof top rain water
harvesting, all the storm water in the already built colonies had to be recharged to
ground water and no borewell/ tubewell for any purpose was allowed in the area
• M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd.
• On Public Trust Doctrine
• Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika permitted M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd to construct an
underground shopping complex in the Jhandewala Park (also known as Aminuddaula
Park) situated at Aminabad Market, Lucknow, to decongest the area. The same was
held to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional by the Allahabad HC. The HC quashed
the relevant resolutions of the Mahapalika permitting such construction and also the
agreement dated November 4, 1993 entered into between the Mahapalika and MI
Builders for the purpose - mandamus issued to the mahapalika to restore the park. Filed
appeal.
• Mahapalika had disposed of the land in favour of the builder in contravention of the
provisions relating to disposal of property under Sections 128 and 129 of the U.P. Nagar
Mahapalika Adhiniyam. As a matter of fact Mahapalika was the trustee of the park and
the doctrine of public trust, which was applicable in India as held by this Court in M.C.
Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others was applicable to the park in question. Mahapalika,
therefore, could only manage the park and could not alienate it or convert it to
something different from the park. Park was held by the Mahapalika on trust for the
citizens of Lucknow
• Under the contract, Mahapalika, though considered to be the owner of the land, is
completely ousted and divested of the land for a period which is not definite and which
depends wholly on the discretion of the builder. It is unjust, unreasonable and irrational.
The construction of the underground shopping complex, if allowed to stand, would
perpetuate an illegality.
• Aruna Rodrigues
• Thus, the petitioners demanded, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, that
protocol to maintain scientific examination of all relevant aspects of biosafety of GMOs
and permissibility of their release be assessed. They prayed for issuance of a direction
or order to the Union of India, not to allow any release of GMOs into the environment
by way of import, manufacture, use or any other manner. The ancillary prayer was to
 seek a protocol for GMOs w/ direction to UOI to frame and implement rules in this
regard.
• The court then constituted a Technical Expert Committee, which included
Distinguished Professors,, Former Members of science and Advisory Committee to the
PMO, recipient of several awards including the Padma Bhushan, Emeritus Professor in
Genetics Toxicology, Radiation Biology and Sustainable Science, etc.
• The court then ordered the committee to submit its report within a stipulated time-frame
and allowed it to hear the government or any other interveners in this petition in order
to make its report on whether there should be a whole or partial ban on open field tests
of GMO and what protocols must be followed for the same.
• Terms of reference of the committee – risk assessment of all GM Crops before releasing
into the environment, when environmental release through open field trials an be
permitted, to advise on whether specific conditions imposed by the regulatory agencies
for open field trials are adequate.
• Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railway
• The Central Government wanted to build a railway line from Bombay to Mangalore
and extend it to Kerala - incorporated the Konkan Railway Corporation. It had powers
to raise money through financial institutions and public borrowings. The railway
alignment passed through various terrains in various states, which required the
construction of a large number of tunnels and projects over rivers. After a detailed and
long survey, the project was approved. The Goa Foundation filed an Article 226 writ
petition against the same.
• The claim of the petitioners that the alignment would have devastating and irreversible
impact upon the khazan lands is without any foundation, and even otherwise, the extent
of damage is extremely negligible and a public project of such a magnitude which is
undertaken for meeting the aspirations of the people on the west coast cannot be
defeated on such considerations.
• The assumption of the petitioners that the exercise undertaken by the Corporation for
providing a rail line is an industry is entirely unjustified. The expression "industries,
operations or processes etc." cannot bring within its sweep the activities of providing a
rail line.
• The provisions of the Environment Act have no application in respect of work
undertaken in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 of the Railways Act, 1989.
Section 11, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law, the Railway Administration may, for the purposes of constructing or maintaining
a railway, make or construct in or upon, across, under or over any lands, or any streets,
hills, valleys, roads, streams, or other waters, rivers as it thinks proper. The wide ambit
of the provisions of Section 11 and the non-obstante Clause makes it extremely clear
that the provisions of the Environment Act do not bind the construction or maintenance
of a railway line.
• For Railway lines, RITES would conduct an administrative model of EIA, as Rail Lines
are not mentioned in the EIA Schedule. The Konkan Railway Case can be relied on for
this purpose.
• ND Jayal case (Tehri Dam)
• Sustainable development, Article 21, rehabilitation, safety of projects, environmental
clearance
• On July 19, 1990, conditional clearance to the project was given by MoEF. It was
specifically provided that completion of status, formulation of action plans and their
implementation will be scheduled in such a manner that their execution is pari-passu
with the construction, failing which the engineering works would be brought to a halt
and this condition will be enforced among others under the provisions of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986.
• Subsequently, during the pendency of this petition, in order to allay fears expressed in
certain quarters, the Government of India in June 1996 appointed a Group of Five
Experts to examine the safety issue. Shri Sandra Bahuguna, who has been spearheading
the movement against the construction of the Tehri Dam, selected the names of all the
five experts. Accordingly, the Group of Experts conducted the necessary exercises at
their own decided parameters and methods. They unanimously concluded that the the
dam was safe. However, as a matter of abundant caution, four Experts suggested (i) 3-
D Non-Linear analysis of the Dam to evaluate its performance against the maximum
credible earthquake and (ii) a simulated dam break analysis to ensure that in the unlikely
event of an uncontrolled release of water, the consequences are minimum, be
conducted.
• The petitioners herein firstly urge us to (i) issue necessary directions to conduct further
safety tests so as to ensure the safety of the dam. Secondly, (ii) they allege that the
concerned authorities have not correspondingly complied with the conditions attached
to the Environmental Clearance dated July 19, 1990 and want us to halt the Project till
the same is complied with. Lastly, (iii) they want us to look into the Rehabilitation
aspects.
• When the Government or the concerned authorities after due consideration of all
viewpoints and full application of mind took a decision, then it is not appropriate for
the Court to interfere. If any such decision is based on irrelevant consideration or non-
consideration of material or is thoroughly arbitrary, then the Court will get in the way.
Here the only point to consider is whether the decision-making agency took a well-
informed decision or not. The consideration in such cases is in the process of decision
and not in its merits.
• if the Government decided not to conduct such tests upon the opinion of the concerned
expert bodies, then the Court cannot advice the Government to go for such tests unless
malafides, arbitrariness or irrationality is attributed to that decision. The decision of the
Government is not based on any financial constraints or uncertainty as to technical
opinion
• Therefore, the concept of 'sustainable development' is to be treated an integral part of
'life' under Article 21. The weighty concepts like inter-generational equity State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, [1995] 6 SCC 363, public trust doctrine
M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 SCC 388 and precautionary principle (Vellore
Citizens), which we declared as inseparable ingredients of our environmental
jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by ensuring sustainable development. EPA must
be read with this context & strict compliance with EPA is necessary to ensure
sustainable development (and thus Art. 21). Environmental cleararance (conditions)
must be viewed from this perspective.
• (iii) Rehabilitation is not only about providing just food, clothes or shelter. It is also
about extending support to rebuild livelihood by ensuring necessary amenities of life.
 Rehabilitation of the oustees is a logical corollary of Article 21. The oustees should be
in a better position to lead a decent life and earn livelihood in the rehabilitated locations.
Thus observed in Narmada Bachao Andolan's case. The overarching projected benefits
from the dam should not be counted as an alibi to deprive the fundamental rights of
oustees. They should be rehabilitated as soon as they are uprooted. And none of them
should be allowed to wait for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation should take place before six
months of submergence
• AP Pollution Control Board
• Looks into the need for specialised tribunals and having experts on the panel,
precautionary principle, polluter pays, inter-generational equity, efficient committee v.
good governance
• The respondent sought to manufacture certain oils like castor oil, fatty acids with by
products etc. for which they purchased 12 acres of land in Peddashapur village,
Shamshabad Mandal
• the A.P. Pollution Control Board contends that the categorisation of industries into red,
green and orange had already been made prior to the notification of 1.2.1989 by Office
Memorandum of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India dated
27.9.1988 and that in that notification also "Vegetable oils including solvent extracted
oils" (Item No.7) and `Vanaspati Hydrogenated Vegetable oils for industrial purposes
(Item 37)" were also included in the red category. It also contends that the company
could not have started civil works unless NOC was given by the Board.
• “In view of the above-mentioned constitutional and statutory provisions we have no
hesitation in holding that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle
are part of the environmental law of the country”
• Principle of Intergenerational equity: The 1972 Stockholm Declaration refers to it in
principles 1 and 2.
• Onus of Proof – burden on actor to show that his actions are environmentally benign.
• There is a lack of unifting judicial system which is fit to combine legislations relevant
to the environment and assist in technical matters which are essential to any
environmental case. Most of them still fall short of a combination of judicial and
scientific needs
• After hearing arguments, parties on both sides agreed for reference of the following
issues to the Appellate Authority under the National Environmental Appellate
Authority Act, 1997. The authority will look into the matter. (a) Is the respondent
industry a hazardous one and what is its pollution potentiality, taking into account, the
nature of the product, the effluents and its location? (b) Whether the operation of the
industry is likely to affect the sensitive catchment area resulting in pollution of the
Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes supplying drinking water to the twin cities of
Hyderabad and Secunderabad? Matter may be listed before us after three months, as
part-heard.
• SC set aside the HC judgement - APCB could not grant an NoC to set up an industry
within a 10 km radius of the reservoirs.
• MC Mehta (Municipality)
• Case on absolute liability developed through the Brundtland Report; no fault liability.
• The judgement follows from the facts established in MC Mehta v. Union of India &
Ors (1987) - the court had directed that the case against municipal corporations
 responsible for water pollution was taken up against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.
Progress Report prepared by Industrial Toxicology Research Centre shows that the
pollution from Ganges is highest in Kanpur.
• The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika was directed to either shift the dairies to outside Kanpur
so that the waste from the dairies did not ultimately reach the river Ganga, or,in the
alternative, the Mahapalika might arrange for the removal of the waste in which case
the owners of the diaries could not be compensated
• The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate steps to increase the size of the
sewers in the labour colonies, so that sewage might be carried smoothly through the
sewerage system, and wherever sewerage line was not yet constructed, steps should be
taken to lay it.
• Immediate action should also be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to construct
sufficient number of public latrines and urinals to prevent defecation by people on the
open land.
• Calcutta Tanneries case
• Ecological imbalance, Articles 21 and 32 (Constitution), polluter pays principle, Water
Act - Sections 2(dd) [“outlet”], (e) [“pollution”], (J) [“stream”], (k) [“trade effluent”],
24(I)(a) [“prohibition on use of stream for disposal or polluting matter”], 25(1)
[“restrictions on new outlets and new discharges”], 25(2) [“application for consent of
the State board”] and 26 [existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent].
• Public interest petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, initially directed
against Kanpur tanneries, but the scope of the petition was later enlarged to include
industries in various cities along the banks of the river Ganga. The case at hand concerns
the approx 550 tanneries located in Tangra, Tiljola, Topsia and Pagla Danga, which
were called upon to stop discharging untreated effluents into the river
• The Court observed that the tanneries are operating in violation of the foll. provisions
of the Water Act - Sections 2(dd) [“outlet”], (e) [“pollution”], (J) [“stream”], (k) [“trade
effluent”], 24(I)(a) [“prohibition on use of stream for disposal or polluting matter”],
25(1) [“restrictions on new outlets and new discharges”], 25(2) [“application for
consent of the State board”] and 26 [existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent].
• Citing the Vellore Citizens Welfare case, the Court explained the “precautionary
principle” and “polluter pays principle”, which it considered to be essential features of
sustainable development. Citing Legal Action v Union of India, where the Court ruled
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”, Consequently polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for
the harm caused to villagers in an affected area.
• As a result, the Court ordered that the Calcutta tanneries shall relocate themselves to
the new leather complex set up by the WB govt, and shall deposit 25% of the price of
the land within a stipulated time period, failing which the industries shall be closed.
• MC Mehta (Taz Trapezium)
• Imp. For relocation due to water pollution.
• M.C. Mehta filed this writ on the basis of the fact that the effluents from industries and
refineries at Mathura are a major source of damage to the Taj. The sulphur dioxide
emitted at these industries combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to make sulphuric
 acid which combines with moisture and comes down as acid rain, causing severe
deterioration to the exterior and interior of the Taj colouring the gleaming white surface
with yellow, brown and black spots. There is also fungal deterioration in the tomb
rooms with the bodies. The writ also annexed a report of the expert committee titled
“Report on Environmental Impact of Mathura Refinery” (Vardharajan Committee)
published by the Government of India in 1978. His plea is that, given the international
and cultural significance of the Taj, the Court must issue appropriate directions to the
authorities concerned to take immediate steps to prevent air pollution in the Taj
Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to protect the Taj.
• In the NEERI Report 1993, which had involved extensive study of the pollution in the
TTZ with the active participation of the Director of NEERI and over 30 scientists, a
major finding was that industries in the TTZ were the major source of pollution causing
damage to the Taj. It suggested that a Green Belt Development Plan should be set up
around the Taj and all these industries should be relocated outside the TTZ. By order
dated 11-2-1994, the Court asked the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation to
locate sufficient areas outside TTZ to relocate the industries. By affidavit dated 3-3-
1994, they had identified multiple sites 60-80 km away from Agra and all outside the
TTZ.
• The Court held that Taj is an industry in itself, drawing more than 2 million tourists
every year. The Court has monitored this petition for over three years, and is convinced
that the use of coal/coke by industries pollutes the air around the Taj and ultimately
leads to its deterioration. The objective of this litigation is to stop the pollution, while
also encouraging development of the industry. Sustainable development is the answer.
Development of the industry along with the protection of the environment and ecology.
The pollution created as a consequence of development must be commensurate with
the carrying capacity of our ecosystem.
• The Court here cited Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India to hold
the Polluter Pays principle applies here. The PP principle states that if an activity is
inherently dangerous, the person carrying out the activity has to make good any harm
caused irrespective of whether he took reasonable care in carrying out the activity. This
is premised on the very nature of the activity itself. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum
v. Union of India, this meant that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends
not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the
environmental degradation. This remediation of damaged environments is part of the
process of sustainable development.
• The Court also cited the Precautionary principle where it highlighted that the onus was
on the industrialist to show that his activity is environmentally benign, and when there
is a threat of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty cannot be the
grounds for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. These two
principles have been accepted as part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and find
further basis through Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. Apart from the
Constitutional mandate, the statutes Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, and the
Environment Act 1986 also have a mandate for preventing, checking and punishing the
pollution of the environment. In light of the Constitutional and statutory mandates, the
two principles are part of the environmental law of the country.
• In this case, in view of the precautionary principle, as a prestigious monument like the
Taj is at risk, the environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes
of environmental degradation. The industry has the “onus of proof” to show that its
operation with the aid of coal/coke does not cause environmental harm. Through the
various reports and studies referred to in the course of this judgement, it is proven
beyond doubt that the emissions generated by the use of coal/coke by the industries in
the TTZ are the main polluters of the air and cause harm.
• The Court observed that the indication of industries from TTZ is to be resorted to only
if the natural gas which has been brought to the doorstep of TTZ cannot/will not be
used by the industry in question as a substitute for coke/coal. The 292 industries
identified should change over to natural gas as an industrial fuel. If they are not in a
position to make this shift, they shall stop functioning with the aid of coke/coal in the
TTZ and relocate as per the details and specifications laid down in this order. Industries
other than these 292 industries will be dealt with separately.
• In Re Noise Pollution case
• Noise as a Health Hazard ● Court recognises it as a type of atmospheric pollution ●
Serious effects on human health - Hearing loss, interference with communication,
disturbance of sleep, effect on performance, effects on unborn children
• The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
• Is such a restriction violative of Article 25 of the Constitution? (Religious Right) ○ No,
bursting firecrackers is in no way essential to the religion and its practice, especially
during festivals.
• There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting firecrackers between 10 pm
and 6 am. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as to time on bursting of colour/light
emitting firecrackers
• The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address
system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above the
ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower
• The peripheral noise level of privately owned sound system shall not exceed by more
than 5 dB(A) than the ambient air quality standard specified for the area in which it is
used, at the boundary of the private place
• Indian Handicrafts Emporium
• The Appellants were manufacturers and sellers of art and craft manufactured from
ivory. Vide Act 44/1991 (‘Amending Act, 1991’), Section 49C in Chapter V-A was
inserted into the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (‘WPA, 1972’). Section 49C contained
a total prohibition of ivory trade. Appellants filed WP before Delhi HC questioning
constitutionality/validity of the Amending Act. The High Court upheld the validity of
the impugned provisions. Challenged before SC.
• Primary object of prohibiting dealing in ivory imported from Africa: While holding
stock of ivory imported from Africa, people may deal in Indian ivory obtained from
killing of Indian elephants. Therefore, the objective was the protection of Indian
elephant [unclear]
• The state’s stand that dealing in ivory will lead to poaching and killing of elephants can
not be said to be irrational. Whether a reasonable restriction will become unreasonable
or vice versa depends on fact-situation. In 1972, elephants may not have been on the
brink of extinction and, therefore, preserving elephants or ivory was not necessary.
 Statement of objects and reasons of 1986, 1991 and 2003 amending acts clearly specify
the necessity to take more stringent measures
• Narmada Bachao Andolan
• Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle, Article 21, Environmental
Clearances, Dam as Industry
• The Sardar Sarovar Dam was to be built upon the Narmada River. The NBA protested
this Dam due to the issues caused to the environment - - Threat posed to agricultural
and forest land, loss of biological and aquatic diversity. - Dam will disrupt downstream
fisheries, increase the prospect of insect-borne diseases - Environmental Clearance
granted was without any proper application of mind.
• Merely because there will be a change is no reason to presume that there will be
ecological disaster. It is when the effect of the project is known then the principle of
sustainable development would come into play which will ensure that mitigative steps
are and can be taken to preserve the ecological balance. Sustainable development means
what type or extent of development can take place which can be sustained by
nature/ecology with or without mitigation
• The construction of a dam undoubtedly would result in the change of environment but
it will not be correct to presume that the construction of a large dam like the Sardar
Sarovar will result in ecological disaster. Therefore MV Nayudu and the Precautionary
Principle will not apply.
• There are different facets of the environment and if in respect of a few of them adequate
data was not available it does not mean that the decision taken to grant environmental
clearance was in any way vitiated.
• TN Godavarman Thirumulpad
• The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further
deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the
provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected
therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or
classification thereof. Interim Guidelines were issues regarding the use of forest land
for non-forest purposes. There are no submissions made on behalf of any parties in the
SC order. The substance of the holding is presented below.
• Holding – forest includes area notified as forest irrespective of ownership, mining in
area without prior approval is violative of the FC Act, sawmills is non-forest activity,
each state government should constitute expert committees to identify forest areas,
denuded forests and areas covered by plantation trees and to assess the sustainable
capacity of the forest qua saw mills.
• S Jagannath (Shrimp Culture case)
• Shrimp culture uses protein feed which is a highly polluting activity. Bio-degradable if
properly treated. Further, the life of a shrimp pond is only 5-10 years, after which the
land is unfit for any other use also.
• Article 32 petition filed by S. Jagannath. Despite the Coastal Zone Regulation
Notification, 1991 [promulgated by the Government of India under Rule 5(3)(a) of the
Environment Protection Rules, 1986] these industries are still coming up on coastal
areas and polluting the environment. Must be enforced
• Stockholm Declaration, 1972 — attracted global attention towards the urgent need of
identifying the critically polluted areas of the marine environments, especially in
 coastal waters, for urgent remedial action. Littoral states should take early action at
their National Level for assessment and control of marine pollution
• Government of India under an obligation to control marine pollution and protect coastal
environments. This is also highlighted in the preamble of the EP Act which provides
that decisions taken at the Stockholm Declaration, 1972 shall be implemented in India
• So, setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas under the CRZ
notification cannot be permitted.
• The Notification has been enacted by the Central Government by exercising its power
under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act. - The Environment Protection
Act has been enacted under Entry 13, List I, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India
read with Article 253, i.e. it is a central legislation. - Therefore, the CRZ Notification
has come by way of a central legislation and will prevail over laws of states.
• Keeping in view the NEERI report and other material, the traditional and improved
traditional types of shrimp- farm technologies - defined by Alagarswami - are
environmentally benign and pollution free. Other types of technologies - extensive,
modified extensive, semi intensive and intensive - create pollution and have degrading
affect on the environment and coastal ecology. Such type of shrimp farms cannot be
permitted to operate and should be dismantled.
• EP Act 1986 – discharge will come under affluents.
• No farm has taken permission under Water Act
• PP and PPP form a part of SD.
• Setting up of shrimp farms in the CRZ prohibited as per Para 2(1) of the Notification.
So, none can be constructed in this area and those already established will be
demolished. This does not apply to traditional modes of farming. They can be
established outside the CRZ only after obtaining prior authorization by the relevant
SPCB.
• Indian Council For Environment-Legal Action (CRZ case)
• The main grievance in this petition is that the Notification dated 19.2.1991 declaring
coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones has not been implemented or enforced.
This has led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas. There is also
a challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 18.8.1994 whereby the first
Notification dated 19.2.1991 has been amended, resulting in further relaxations of the
provisions of 1991 Notification and such relation, it is alleged, will help in defeating
the intent of the main Notification itself.
• The Supreme Court held that the amendment reducing the width of the zone from 100
m to 50 m in respect of rivers, creeks and backwaters was contrary to the object of the
EPA and may lead to serious ecological damage. Also the amendment did not contain
any guidelines as to when the discretion was to be exercised and gave unbridled power.
The court struck down the amendment as being violative of Article 21. The Supreme
Court observed that authorities under whose jurisdiction the implementation of the CRZ
Notification has fallen were overworked and had limited control. It directed that Coastal
Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs) be set up, in order to supervise the
implementation of the CRZ Notification and also provide advice to the MoEF and the
GoI on issues of coastal regulation. Considering the fact that the Pollution Control
Boards are not only overworked but simultaneously have a limited role to play in so far
as it relates to controlling of pollution for the purpose of ensuring effective
 implementation of the Notifications of 1991 and 1994, as also of the Management
Plans, the Central Government should consider setting up under Section 3 of the Act.
State Coastal Management Authorities in each State or zone and also a National Coastal
Management Authority. Consequently, by Government order dated November 26,
1998, the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) and the
various State Coastal Zone Management Authorities (SCZMAs) came into
existence.
• Center for Environmental Law WWF-I
• The state of MP undertook a massive rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in
and near Kuno so as to push forward the scheme of relocation of Asiatic lions in Kuno.
It was noticed that about 1545 families of 24 revenue villages were living inside Kuno
and they had to be rehabilitated outside the sanctuary. Since suitable and sufficient
revenue land was not available in adjoining areas, it was decided to relocate those
villages on degraded protected forests. Since proposed site of resettlement fell in
various blocks of protected forest, the use as a rehabilitation purpose involved a legal
obligation to obtain prior sanction from MoEF under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation)Act, 1980. MoEF, after examining the request of the State of Madhya
Pradesh, conveyed its approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
for diversion of 3720.9 hectare of forest land for rehabilitation of 18 villages located
inside the Kuno, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
• Government of Madhya Pradesh informed that the Kuno was waiting for the release of
lions from Gujarat and that the Madhya Pradesh Government had taken all the
necessary measures to make Kuno the ideal second home for the lions. Further, it was
pointed out that the State had already relocated 24 villages from the sanctuary for the
said purpose. Further, it was pointed out that Kuno was suggested as a second home for
lions after due scientific studies conducted by WII and Kuno had posed no threat to the
conservation of lions. Further, it was also pointed out that the prey base was in plenty
in Kuno and he requested that the lions be translocated to Kuno at the earliest.
• NBWL is, therefore, the top most scientific body established to frame policies and
advise the Central and State Governments on the ways and means of promoting wild
life conservation and to review the progress in the field of wild life conservation in the
country and suggesting measures for improvement thereto.
• The Parliament enacted the Biological Diversity Act in the year 2002 followed by the
National Biodiversity Rules in the year 2004. The main objective of the Act is the
conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
Biodiversity and biological diversity includes all the organisms found on our planet i.e.
plants, animals and micro-organisms, the genes they contain and the different eco-
systems of which they form a part. The rapid deterioration of the ecology due to human
interference is aiding the rapid disappearance of several wild animal species. Poaching
and the wildlife trade, habitat loss, human-animal conflict, epidemic etc. are also some
of the reasons which threaten and endanger some of the species
• While examining the necessity of a second home for the Asiatic lions, our approach
should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric and we must apply the ‘species best
interest standard’ that is the best interest of the Asiatic lions. We must focus our
attention to safeguard the interest of species, as species have equal rights to exist on
 this earth. Asiatic Lion have become critically endangered because of human
intervention. The specie originally existed in North Africa and South-West Asia
formerly stretched across the coastal forests of northern Africa and from northern
Greece across south-west Asia to eastern India. Today the only living representatives
of the lions once found throughout much of South-West Asia occur in India’s Gir
Forest. Asiatic lion currently exists as a single sub-population and is thus vulnerable to
extinction from unpredictable events, such as an epidemic or large forest fire etc. and
we are committed to safeguarding this endangered species because this species has a
right to live on this earth, just like human beings.
• Approach made by SWBL and the State of Gujarat is an anthropocentric approach, not
eco-centric. The cardinal issue is not whether the Asiatic lion is a ‘family member’ or
is part of the ‘Indian culture and civilization’, or the pride of a State but the preservation
of an endangered species for which we have to apply the ‘species best interest standard’.
Our approach should not be human-centric or family-centric but eco-centric. ‘Scientific
reasoning’ for its re-location has to supersede the family bond or pride of the people
and we have to look at the species best interest especially in a situation where the specie
is found to be a critically endangered one and the necessity of a second home has been
keenly felt
SLIDES NOTES
• National Forest Policy 1988
• For management of state forests in the country
• Objectives – to ensure preservation of remaining forests along with its flora and fauna,
maintain environmental stability, checking soil erosion, meeting demands for firewood,
fuel etc.
• National Conservation Strategy 1992
• Measures – Legal, Institutional, Prevention and Control of Pollution, Conservation of
Forests and Wildlife
• Strategies – population control, conservation of natural resources (biomass,
atmosphere, land water etc.)
• Development from enviro perspective – agriculture and irrigation, animal husbandry,
forestry, energy generation, industrial development, mining, tourism, transport, human
settlements.
• SUPPORT POLICIES AND SYSTEMS – Strengthening of institutions and legislation,
Natural resource accounting, Training and orientation programmes, Promoting
environmental awareness, Promoting appropriate environmental technologies,
Rehabilitation of project oustees, Role of non-governmental organizations, Women and
Environment
• National Zoo Policy and Tiger Task Force
• Preamble – for nature and wildlife conservation, welfare of captive wild animals,
prevent large number of animals from becoming endangered, tool for educating people
and sensitizing them about wildlife.
• Objectives – to act as research centres for promoting conservation, inculcate empathy
among visitors, rescue sites for orphaned wild animals, conserve endangered species.
• Strategies – sustained supply of resources to set up a new zoo, long term plan for zoos
to utilise resources, heathy and hygienic environment to be maintained in zoos, priority
 to endangered species, number of each species to be regulated, no single animals to
maintain sex ratio, population control measures.
• Acquisition of animals – not from the wild except founder animals for approved
breeding programme, no transaction which violated any law of intl. conventions on
wildlife protection, no transaction in respect of surplus animals with a commercial
establishment.
• Animal Housing – housing and upkeep to maintain quality of life, enclosures must
allow for free movement, enclosures to have shelters, perches, drinking water points
etc.
• Upkeep of animal collections – diet similar to nature, portable drinking water, prevent
physical handling by staff, no provocation for any tricks for entertainment of visitors.
• Health to be maintained – vet services to be provided.
• Breeding – priority to endangered species, objectives of breeding programme to be
identified.
• In 2000, the Supreme Court, acting on a public interest litigation (Public Interest
Litigation writ number 1474/1998), directed the secretary, Union ministry of
environment and forests, to convene a meeting of chief secretaries of tiger habitat states
to evolve a joint strategy for protection of the tiger.
• Each reserve must have a specific and detailed strategy for protection
• There should be a clear strategy for protection in the northeastern reserves, where local
people will be the only ones capable of traversing and protecting the tiger
• Further recruitment of staff — foresters as well as guards — must be reserved, as far as
possible, for local villagers
• National Environment Policy, 2006
• Conservation of Critical Environmental Resources:
• Intra-generational Equity: Livelihood Security for the Poor:
• Inter-generational Equity:
• Integration of Environmental Concerns in Economic and Social Development:
• Economic Efficiency:
• Polluter Pays:
• Cost Minimization:
• Entities with "Incomparable" Values:
• Equity:
• Legal Liability:
• Fault Based Liability
• Strict Liability
• Action plans would need to be prepared on identified themes by the concerned agencies
at all levels of Government Central, State/UT, and Local. In particular, the State and
Local Governments would be encouraged to formulate their own strategies or action
plans consistent with the National Environment Policy. Empowerment of Panchayats
and the Urban Local Bodies, particularly, in terms of functions, functionaries, funds,
and corresponding capacities, will require greater attention for operationalising some
of the major provisions of this policy.
• Vulture and Botanical Gardens
• The population of three species i.e. White-backed Vulture, Slender billed Vulture and
Long billed Vulture in the wild has declined drastically over the past decade. The
decline of Gyps genus in India has been put at 97% by 2005.
• countries to begin action to prevent all uses of diclofenac in veterinary applications that
allow diclofenac to be present in carcasses of domestic livestock available as food for
vultures
• The ecological, social and cultural significance of vultures in India may be summed up
as: scavenging on animal carcasses of animals and thereby helping keep the
environment clean; and the disposal of dead bodies as per the religious practices of the
Parsi community
• A phased programme of safety testing for an alternative drug, Meloxicam, was started
on 24 vultures in 3 groups of 8 birds
• Need for Botanical Gardens – For research and education purpose of endangered
species of plants and materials and conservation of the same for maintaining bio-
diversity
• Tiger Task Force
• To suggest measures to protect tiger population and engage local community in the
process.
• The tiger lives in a habitat which is contiguous to other spaces.
• The habitat of the tiger needs development efforts, not just protection
• The survival of the tiger will depend on our abilities to rebuild the institutions for
its governance
• Setting up of separate tiger reserves.
• In most cases, tiger reserves are created as administrative entities over-arching a
national park, adjoining sanctuaries or reserve forests. The idea works to advantage as
it fits in very well with the logic behind a tiger reserve.
• The core is accorded the highest level of protection; no human habitation is
recommended here.
• Lack of trained and young staff is a huge issue.
• Nearly every part of the tiger has a commercial value.
• Live tigers are sold as exotic pets. Traditional Asian medicine uses tiger bone as an
ingredient in a number of different concoctions.
• The skin is used to make 'magical' amulets and novelties, and worn as part of traditional
attire.
• The teeth and claws too become amulets.
• Large market for tiger parts outside India.
• The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) is the international agreement that regulates this trade.
• Since the early 1990s, CITES has been seeking to control persistent illegal trade in tiger
parts and derivates.
• cites has often been criticised because of its dependence on trade measures. In this case,
it is clear that the ban on tiger parts, however essential, has pushed the trade
underground and made it even more difficult to detect.
• Constitution and Environment Protection
• Environment Protection and FRs – right to wholesome environment, right to livelihood,
right to equality, freedom of trade and environment.
• T Damodar Rao – the land use change from open space to a site for building quarters
for government servants and LIC employees. It is the first case where an Indian court
held that the conversion of open space, the lungs of a populated urban residential area,
would affect the right to life under art 21 of the Constitution.
• Bangalore Medical Trust – prevented the use of open space for a private medical
complex.
• Ivory Traders and Manufacturers – Whether import of ivory under 19 91) (g)
• Subhash Kumar – no remedy given because personal bias but held that Art. 21 includes
right to healthy environment.
• In Moulana Mufti Syed Md Noorur Rehman Barkati v State of West Bengal [AIR
1999 Cal 15] and in Om Birangans Religious Society v State [(1996) 100 Cal WN 617]
Calcutta High Court scrutinized the dimensions of control over the use of microphones
and loudspeakers. Their excessive noise would affect human health. Even for the sake
of freedom of speech and religion, their use has to be regulated.
• Art. 32 and Art. 226 – PIL
• PIL cases – not adversarial, prospective, corrective and less compensatory, difficulty in
delimiting the duration.
• PIL – representative standing (standing for poor and oppressed) – Mumbai Kamgar
Sabha, Hussainara Khatoon, Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union, SP Gupta, PUDR.
Citizen standing (standing against executive inaction) – own right to file (a person or a
voluntary organization) – SP Gupta, Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union, SCARA.
• Early environment cases – MC Mehta (Shri Ram, Municipalities, and Kanpur
Tanneries).
• Order 1 Rule 8 – class action – class must be numerous, same interest, sue or be sued
on behalf of the class, notice to all.
• PIL benefits – speedy, inexpensive, direct access to highest courts, compensatory
decisions may be obtained, evidences adduced during trials.
• State Responsibility u/a 48A
• Article 48A – The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country
• Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand – case.
• Kanpur Tanneries case imp.
• Ivory Traders case – By virtue of Section 10 of the Constitution (42 Amendment) Act,
1976, Article 48A was inserted in the Constitution. Article 48A enjoins upon the State
to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and the wild life of
the country. Therefore, what is destructive of the environment, forest and wild life is
contrary to the said directive principles of the State policy.
• Vellore Citizens Forum and AP Pollution Control Board
• Maa Bhawani Timber – The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is now well
settled that private interest has to give way to the public interest. In view of the mass
felling and destruction of forest leading to the threat to the environmental imbalance
• Fundamental Duties u/a 51A (g)
• to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild
life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
• Harija Lay Out Sudhar Samiti – Our Parliament has also enacted Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, for the purpose of protecting and improving our environment.
The Act is clearly in harmony with our constitutional provisions which not only the
amenities of the State to protect and improve environment and to safeguard the forests
and wild life of the country but also held it to be the duty of everyone of our citizens to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wild
life and to have compassion for living creatures (Article 51-A(g).
• Article 51-A(g) imposes "a fundamental duty" on every citizen of India to protect and
improve the natural "environment" including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to
have compassion for living creatures. The word 'environment' is of broad spectrum
which brings within its ambit hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance. It is,
therefore, not only the duty of the State but also the duty of every citizen to maintain
hygienic environment
• Santosh Govind Mahajan – Equally, the citizens owe the duty under Article 51-A(g) of
the Constitution to protect and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Apart from the
above, there is the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 of which, the Statement
of Object and Reasons related with the pronouncement of citizens duty as well.
• Stockholm Declaration 1972
• Proclamation 1 – man is both creature and moulder of environment.
• Proclamation 2. The protection and improvement of the human environment is a
major issue which affects the well-being of peoples.
• Principle 1 – man has FR to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life. 2 –
natural resources to be safeguarded for present and future generations. 3 – stress on RE.
4 – protection of wildlife. 5 – non RE resources to be used is a way to prevent their
future exhaustion. 6 – check on global warming. 7 – pollution of seas state
responsibility. 8 – economic and social development. Principle 9 by accelerated
development through the transfer of substantial quantities of financial and technological
assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing countries and such
timely assistance as may be required.
• T Damodar Rao, Bicchari case, Vellore case (SD comes from SD), KM Chinappa
(Principle 3) etc.
• World Charter for Nature, 1982
• The degradation of natural systems owing to excessive consumption and misuse of
natural resources, as well as to fauna to establish an economic order among peoples and
among States, leads to the breakdown of economical, social and political framework of
civilization.
• 1 – nature to be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired. 2 –
population of all species must be sufficient for their survival, habitats must be
safeguarded. 3 – all areas to receive protection, special protection to unique areas and
habitats of rare and endangered species. 4 – similar to sustainable development – focus
on sustainable productivity without endangering ecosystems. 5 – nature to be secured
against degradation by war.
• In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population growth and
the improvement of standards of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term
capacity of natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of the populations
concerned, recognizing that this capacity may be enhanced through science and
technology
• Pollutants shall not be discharged, if inevitable then treated at source.
• Onus on individual to fulfil the charter goals as well.
• Brundtland Commission Report/World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED)
• Part I – Common Concerns. 1A. A Threatened Future. 2. Sustainable Development.
• Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains
within it two key concepts:
• the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which
overriding priority should be given; and
• the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on
the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.
• 3. The Role of the International Community. 4. Population and Human Resources. 5.
Food Security. 10. Managing the Commons.
• A forest may be depleted in one part of a watershed and extended elsewhere, which is
not a bad thing if the exploitation has been planned and the effects on soil erosion rates,
water regimes, and genetic losses have been taken into account.
• A forest may be depleted in one part of a watershed and extended elsewhere, which is
not a bad thing if the exploitation has been planned and the effects on soil erosion rates,
water regimes, and genetic losses have been taken into account.
• Rio Declaration 1992
• P1 – human beings at centre of SD. P2 – states have right to exploit their resources
pursuant to their environmental and developmental policies. P4 – environment is a part
of development. P5 – eradication of poverty. P6 – developing countries special needs
to be kept in mind. P13 – law for liability and compensation for victims of pollution.
P15 – PP (Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation). P16 – PPP. P17 – EIA
(Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for
proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.). P19 – transboundary harm information to be given quickly. P22 –
protection of traditional knowledge.
• Cases – Vellore case (The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have
been accepted as part of the law of the land). KM Chinappa mentions.
• Kyoto Protocol
• 1988- The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• Created by the UN, IPCC brought together scientists from the world’s governments to
find scientific answers to whether the world was warming or cooling
• 1988- Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere
• -One of the first major scientific conferences on climate change
• -Called for 20% cut to 1988 greenhouse gas emissions by 2005
• -Called effect of climate change “second only to global nuclear war”
• Rio – stabilize greenhouse emissions by 2000.
• Kyoto Protocol – COP III in Kyoto – 5% global decrease in greenhouse between 2008-
2012 from 1990 levels.
• Came into effect in 2005 after Russia ratified it
• NTPC Ltd. – The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty intended to bring
countries together to reduce global warming and to cope with the effects of temperature
increases that are unavoidable after 150 years of industrialization. Legally binding on
India.
• Article 3.1 – brings together the various elements of the emission commitments made
by Annex I parties in an umbrella provision. It emphasizes on the legally-binding
nature of the commitments made by the parties and goes on to specify the dates of the
commitment period (2008-2012) and the baseline for emission levels (1990 levels). The
reduction of emission levels was set as a ‘collective target’ to be achieved by the
aggregate reductions of all the Annex I parties.
• Art. 3.2 – demonstrable progress by 2012. Article 3.5 and 3.6 – Flexibilities –
Recognize that ‘Economies in transition’ (EIT’s) may face severe problems when
attempting to fulfill their commitments under the Protocol and granted then a certain
degree of flexibility with regards to their baseline.
• Article 3.14 – mandates that the implementation of commitments shall be done in such
a manner that there is minimum adverse social, environmental and economic impact
on developing country parties (identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the
Convention).
• Even if the Kyoto Protocol were to be strictly observed, the reduction in global
greenhouse gas emissions during the period 2008 to 2012 would still be considerably
lower than 5.2% as developing nations have no clear-cut obligations.
• The Kyoto Protocol takes the year 1990 as a baseline. This was a time of upheaval in
the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, when greenhouse gas emissions in the
region decreased at the same drastic rate at which national economies shrank. For this
reason, even if no emission reduction measures were adopted by Russia, the Ukraine or
other Eastern European nations, their emission levels during the period 2008–2012
would still be considerably lower than those stipulated in the Protocol. The difference
between emission quotas and emission quantity has come to be known as ‘hot air’.
Russia, Ukraine, and other nations in that region could, according to the Protocol
emissions trading mechanism, sell their ‘hot air’ surplus emission quotas to the West
for foreign currency. This approach could help realize the emission reduction goals
stipulated in the Protocol but, from the point of view of mitigating global warming,
would essentially be without benefit.
• Johannesburg Summit 2002
• The Summit reaffirmed sustainable development as a central element of the
international agenda and gave new impetus to global action to fight poverty and protect
the environment.
• The understanding of sustainable development was broadened and strengthened as a
result of the Summit, particularly the important linkages between poverty, the
environment and the use of natural resources
• Support for the establishment of a world solidarity fund for the eradication of poverty
was a positive step forward
• Key Commitments
• Poverty Eradication
• Water and Sanitation
• Sustainable Production and Consumption
• Energy
• Renewable energy, Access to Energy, Energy Markets, Energy efficiency
•