ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Date: 11-7-23
E-Waste Management rules
Extended Producer Responsibility: recycle or collect the electronic
waste

Date: 12-7-23
Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism
Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism are two ways of understanding an
extension of ethics to nature. In an anthropocentric ethic nature deserves
moral consideration because how nature is treated affects humans. In an
ecocentric ethic nature deserves moral consideration because nature has
intrinsic value.

Anthropocentric approach: Humans are the center of this.

Ecocentric approach: Nature is the most important part of this, and

humans are not the main focus.

Sustainable Development: This concept encompasses two major rights

– right to environment and right to development. The right to
environment refers to the right to a clean and healthy environment in
tandem with nature. These two rights existing separately till 1987 when
the Brundtland Commission report introduced the concept of Sustainable
Development. The principal of intergenerational equity was also
introduced.

1977 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention, 1949: The

Protocol I deals directly with the dangers that modern warfare
represents for the natural environment. The basic rule reads as:

“It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are

intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural environment.”

Trans-boundary natural resources: The concept of trans-boundary

natural resources developed for the better management of shared natural
resources. These are the resources such as water bodies, air etc. that are
shared by multiple countries and impact on these by even one country
can impact several regions. Examples include pollution of a water body in
one area impacting the land and water utilisation in regions on the lower
end of the water body’s flow.

 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union Of India, 1996 (SC)

A PIL was filed under Article 32 concerning severe pollution of soil and
water which was causing due to discharge of untreated sewage water
from 900 tanneries built in 5 districts of Tamil Nadu. The Palar River in
Tamil Nadu which was main source of potable water in that area, used
for consumption and irrigation was completely polluted due to this
tanneries. 35,000 hectares of land near the tannery was declared unfit
for cultivation. Also water of 350 wells present that area was declared
unsafe for consumption. Also order of the Tamil Nadu Pollution control
board to build a effluent plant for proper disposal of effluents was left
unheard.

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the government had been
urging the tanneries for about the last ten years to set up either a
Common Effluent Treatment Plant for a group of themselves or set up
their separate effluent treatment plants. The Central Government also
said that it would provide subsidies for the establishment of Common
Effluent Treatment Plants. But still, most of the tanneries were
functioning without treatment plants.

It was argued by the respondents that the standard with respect to Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) fixed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
was not legitimized. But the Court requested the National Environmental
Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) on April 9, 1996 to inspect this
matter and give its opinion about it. And in its report, NEERI legitimized
the models stipulated by the Board.

This case was decided by the Apex Court in the year 2016. This is one of
the landmark cases whereby the Supreme Court critically analysed the
relationship between environment and industrial development and
entrenched the principle of preventive methodology in environmental
protection.

Issue: Whether the tanneries should be permitted to keep on working at

the expense of environment and health & lives of lakhs of individuals?

It was observed by the court that the tanneries are one of the major
foreign exchange sources and also create employment. But, it also harms
and wrecks the environment. Thus in order to create balance between
environmental and industrial development court ruled that the tanneries
should be shut down until and unless they have set up the required
pollution control devices.

The Supreme Court applied the concept of Sustainable Development

while passing judgement on the said matter. It applied this concept
through the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle.

The court said that the principle provided in this case will now apply as
customary international law. It was discussed in class as to how this is
problematic and leads to the court transcending its limits.

Date: 13-7-23
 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2000 (SC)
Post-independence, the ideal approach to deal with the Narmada stream,
which went through the territories of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and
Maharashtra prior to exhausting into the Arabian Sea was deliberated.
The state was entangled in an argument about water appropriation. On
October 6, 1969, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal was set up to
determine the following debates. As per the Government of India’s
guidelines, the council examined the worries and, following a protracted
ten-year examination, revealed back to the public authority with its
significant discoveries.

The council supported the structure of 30 huge, 135 medium, and 3000
little dams, just as the rise of the Sardar Sarovar Dam. The choice
depended on the reason that when these undertakings are finished, forty
million individuals will profit with further developed water system and
more energy.

Individuals, essentially Adivasis, were informed that they required just to

move from their present area and that they would be furnished with
enough offices in their new area, yet the truth was very different.
Individuals, or adivasis, were constrained to relocate or resettle in any
event, when resettlement techniques were not finished by government.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a non-legislative association that

has been in the front line of the resistance to the development of the
Sardar Sarovar Dam, recorded a writ case with this Court raising various
concerns, including help and recovery.

The court said that:

 migration of ancestral and different people would not comprise an

infringement of their crucial or different rights;
 upon restoration in new areas, they would be in an ideal situation
than they were;
 upon recovery in new areas, they would have more and preferable
conveniences over they had in their villages; and
 upon continuous digestion.

The SC said that these developmental activities are for the benefit of
mankind and we need to look at all the beneficiaries of such actions. It
said that the project should go ahead and asked that if the ecology of the
area was disturbed then a similar ecology can be created in another area.

Important section of NGT Act, 2010:

Section 20: Tribunal to apply certain principles

The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decision or award, apply
the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle
and the polluter pays principle.

Date: 14-7-23
  Jeet Singh Kanwar v. MOEF (2013)
Koba in the city of Chhattisgarh has lots of pollution because its highly
industrialised. The MOEF passed an order banning the opening up of
new industries. In 2012, an industrialist was given permission to set up
his industry and was given environmental clearance as well and this was
challenged. The NGT took away the environmental clearance based on
the concept of sustainable development.
If the environmental degradation is going to cause a long-lasting effect,
in that case the economic interests of the individuals will not subsume
the environmental interest.

 MP Patil v. Union of India (2014)

Apart from environmental degradation, there has to be a balance
between the right to environment and development. The principle of
sustainable development has been applied well.

Trail Smelter Arbitration

(US v. Canada)
- Smelter is a melting facility for extracting metal from ore. There
are certain affluents released from this.
- Trans Boundary Harm was being caused.
- The Canadian SC, awarded $60,000 to the farmers due to the
pollution caused by the farmers. The affluents released spoilt the
cultivation of the plants. But they didn’t go beyond just a fine.
- There was a river connecting Canada and US.
- In the US, the farmers formed an association and gave samples to
govt that showed that degradation to their environment had
occurred.
- There was an arbitral tribunal that was set up. There were two
orders –
1. Compensation of $20 million to farmers and govt.
2. They had to stop polluting the environment and other directions
to stop future degradation of the environment.
- In 1941, they came out with another order where they observed
that the factory had stopped polluting and the compensation given
earlier would suffice.
- It laid down the principle of polluter pay.

Date: 17-7-23

Trail Smelter’s Polluter Pay’s aspect looked at

1. Compensation
2. Restoration /injunctory aspect

International declaration of Polluter Pay’s took place in 1992 at the

Rio Declaration Conf.

Internalisation of Costs –
  holding the primary polluter wholly responsible and not just for the
immediate degradation but for all the levels of population affected
by the activity all steps must be taken to ensure that no pollution is
being cost in your state and other affected stated.
 It takes into account transboundary harm caused to another state.

Who is polluter?
Can be state, individual, industry.
 State: may be due to their inaction also.
 Industries: Pollution caused by manufacturing
 Individuals: poor waste disposal, fast fashion etc.

NGT act and Polluter’s Pay [“PP”]

 Section 20 of NGT Act

In the judicial framework – Vellore case, Indian Council For Enviro-

Legal v. Union Of India (Bichhri Case) (1996)

 Indian Council For Enviro-Legal v. Union Of India (“Bichhri

Case”)
 untreated waste and sludge deeply impacted land, soil, and water
quality.
 SC applied PP directly for the first time
 Compensation must be paid
- To villagers directly
- Rajasthan govt also held liable for inaction
 NGT held that the community at large was liable

 Karan Singh v. State of HP

- NGT opened an option for HP to levy an improper disposal of waste
- Not segregating waste and therefore
- This is similar to base tax

 Kamal Anand v. State of Punjab

Similar to Karan Singh but NGT also said that a tax can be imposed on
households, shops as well as industries. The corporation was directed to
charge every household, shop, hotel or any industrial building to pay the
specific amount along with the property tax payable for the property, or
on monthly basis, whichever is permitted by the concerned authorities
based on PPP

 Court on its own motion v. HP (2014)

- NGT created a green tax fund
- If you wanted access to Rohtang pass you have to pay a tax for the
same. There was a levy based on the category of the vehicle –
whether light or private/public
- Green fund would be used to preserve ecologically sensitive
Rohtang Pass
Date: 19-7-23
Polluter Pay’s Principle compensation
1. Estimation/ Guesswork
Propounded in the AP Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu
the principle of ‘limited’ guesswork is an ‘accepted principle’.
2. Size of the project
3. Size of the cooperation
Sometimes, scientific evidence was also looked into. Sometimes theres a
combination of both

 Tanaji Balasaheb v. UOI

The Applicant has sought directions against M/s. Goel Ganga Developers
India Private Limited, who were alleged to have constructed a
commercial and residential complex. The applicant sought
directions to demolish the illegal structures at the site in question and
restore the area to its original position. The NGT found truth in the
allegations made and directed the respondent, M/s. Goel Ganga
Developers India Private Limited to pay environmental compensation
cost.

In a review application the NGT held the order to be erroneous for two
reasons. First, it was observed that the Tribunal had come to a
conclusion that the project proponent must be saddled with exemplary
and deterrent compensation (more than the estimated compensation) but
had adopted a soft approach later. Secondly, estimating the cost on the
lower side, i.e. Rs.
100 crores or 5 per cent of the total cost of the project whichever is
lower, the Tribunal was undermining the rigour of the law of the land.
Therefore, after calculating the damages in terms of Carbon Foot Print as
amounting to 190 crores, the direction was modified to Rs. 190 crores or
5 per cent of the total cost of the project to be assessed by SEAC
whichever is more.

Precautionary Principle
It revolves around the likelihood of damage that could be cost to the
environment. for example: coastal zone regulation. For the first time it
was featured in the Rio Declaration – principle 15.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full

scientific certainty shall be not used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

The declaration does not define - serious or irreversible damage, so as

to ensure broader application.

Before the Rio declaration this principle was only mentioned in parts.
For example:
1. The 1985 Vienna Convention on the protection of ozone layer,
 2. the Montreal protocol – which spoke about limiting CFCs, it
supplemented the 1985 Vienna Convention,
3. there was a 1984 convention on North Sea – focused on protecting
aquatic life and water,
4. Convention on Biodiversity, 1992 wrt to conservation on
biodiversity and precaution with respect to the same – it also stated
that a lack of scientific evidence should not serve as a reason.

Examples of Precautionary Principle

i. S.20 of the NGT, Act
ii. CRZ
iii. EIA
iv. Wetland conservation rules
v. Vellore case – affluent plants
1. Gabcikovo Nagymaros Case (1997, ICJ)
2. Southern Bluefin Tuna (1999, ITLOS)

 Gabcikovo Nagymaros Case

The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project was agreed to in 1977. It was
abandoned by the Hungarian government in the early 1980s because of
worries about its environmental impact and financial problems. The
Czechoslovakians finished their side of the project. They completed the
Gabcikovo dam, or Cunovo dam, in 1992. In 1993, the country of
Czechoslovakia split into two: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Slovakia
took control of the area. The dam pushed more than 80 percent of the
flow of the Danube out of its main riverbed and into a canal on the Slovak
side of the river. This led to a huge drop in the Danube’s water flow
below the dam. The dam and canal system created several problems that
upset the Hungarians.

They took this matter in the ICJ. Hungary took the defence of
environmental necessity and sought to establish the precautionary
principle. They said no imminent threat/ peril was there. There was a
lack of scientific evidence. They said that Hungary failed to show
unjustifiable harm on the ecology of the Danube River.

Date: 24-7-23
When Hungary went before the ICJ, they stated that Slovakia should also
abandon that side of the project. Hungary cited the Grave and Imminent
Peril to the Natural Resources.
The ICJ stated that the project may be ecologically harmful to the nature
– what evidence do they have.

When the ICJ delivered its judgement, they stated that they should go
ahead with the project in a manner that benefits both parties

Summary:
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/92/7377.pdf
 ITLOS Case: Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (New Zealand v.
Japan; Australia v. Japan)
New Zealand and Australia alleged that Japan had failed to comply with
its obligation to cooperate in the conservation of the southern bluefin
tuna stock by, inter alia, undertaking unilateral experimental fishing for
southern bluefin tuna in 1998 and 1999 and had requested an arbitral
tribunal to be constituted.
T he Applicants asked the arbitral tribunal to declare that Japan had
breached its obligations under Articles 64 and 116 to 119 of UNCLOS. As
a consequence of the said breaches of UNCLOS, Japan should refrain
from authorizing or conducting any further experimental fishing for SBT
without the agreement of New Zealand and Australia and negotiate and
co-operate in good faith with New Zealand and Australia with a view to
agreeing future conservation measures and total allowable catch for
southern bluefin tuna necessary for restoring the stock to levels which
could produce the maximum sustainable yield.

There was a lack of scientific evidence and certainty as to which

percentage of Japan’s experimental fishing is affecting the stock levels.
Still the precautionary principle was applied to

Vellore Citizens Welfare forum v. Union of India

Said that Sustainable development principle is incomplete unless PPP
and Precautionary Principle is also applied

Important principles laid down –

1. Environmental action undertaken by state authorities – like State

Pollution control board
2. Lack of Scientific certainty
3. Onus of proof that your industry is not degrading the environment
is on the industrialist

A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu

It was located very close to an oil manufacturing plant. The AP HC
overturned the order of the pollution control board – stating that they
can’t outrightly not provide a consent letter, they must provide

The burden of the proof on the precautionary principle was on the

industrialist and he could not prove that the plant would not degrade the
environment. the lack of scientific evidence is not an excuse. Here is
where precautionary principle comes into play.

Date: 25-7-23
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

The roots of the doctrine lie in Ancient Roman Law. There are certain
resources that belong to the Community at large. The resources should
not be allocated for private things. The state acts like a trustee for these
resources. It protects the distribution and usage of the resources. In the
current times – if you assume that forest is a public resource, the state
regulates it and it ensures a fair distribution of the forest resources. Even
though tribal communities live there, the state must protect these
resources.

The adaptation is fairly governed by US Jurisprudence.

 Illinois Railroad Corporation v. Illinois, 1892 US-SC

A part of the Chicago harbour was sold to the rail road company. A
reason for that was . Ownership was transferred to a private
organisation. Question was whether it could do that.
While expanding on the public trust doctrine. The state has to act
as a trustee for the public at large. Firstly, private ownership is not
allowed, because these resources belong to the public at large. If
the state wants to give out these resources to private entities, the
ends should be for some public benefit.

 National Audubon society vs. a/Superior Court of Alpine City,

1982 Cal SC (“Mono Lake Case”)
There were four streams that contribute to the Mono lake, these
streams were diverted to Los Angles. The place where the streams
were diverted led to the aquatic life starting to die. The people
residing on the diverted stream areas, felt the shortage of fresh
water resources.

There was some public benefit to diverting the streams but it was
causing loss to some
The state has to strike a balance between these two interests. They
said that state should have acted more carefully to ensure that the
upstream cities are not affected by the lack of freshwater.

This principle for the first time was adopted in the MC Mehta v.
Kamal Nath, 1997 SC Case.

 MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997 SC

In this case the environment minister after being appointed in HP,
reallocated the forest land and got it cleared for building a motel.
He also changed the course of a river.

Because the course of the river was diverted, there was some
flooding which affected the state worse. Even the motel property
was also impacted. Other properties in the area worth 100 Cr was
also impacted.

This was brought into public interest by Indian Express. MC Mehta

filed PIL stating that the land was cleared for a private purpose.
The SC said that the state failed in its duty to protect the
 environment. The motel had closed up the river basin area for
public access. The SC said that the part of the river basin covered
by the motel premises should be cleared up and a boundary wall
should be built separating them. This is because river basin area is
for public access, it also put a penalty on the minister. At the same
time the hotel was directed not to discharge any untreated waste
into the environment.

The exception recognised in the Illinois case was not recognised in

this case.

 Intellectual Forum Tirupathi v. State of AP

There were two water tanks and the water was used for drinking
and irrigation. The water was diverted for the urban development
project. The SC did not take away the water from the urban
development project but it made it mandatory for rain water
harvesting in the housing as a restorative measure.

The Illinois jurisprudential exception was adopted in 2010.

 Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries,

2010 SC
Till 1999, only the state had right to exploration to petroleum. It
was allocated to Coal India only generally. It allowed private
exploration of these resources on certain terms and conditions put
forth by the govt. One such project in Godavri was given to the
Reliance Natural Resources. Could the govt give this right of
exploration to private organisations?

The SC said that when we apply the public trust doctrine the govt
must act as a trustee. But there might be instances where the govt
does not have the technological know-how and ultimately giving it
to private exploration leads to public benefit. However, after
recovering those resources gives it to the govt or if they are selling
it privately, there is a cap. These limitations are put for the public
benefit.

Date: 31-7-23
Article Reading

Date: 1-8-23
International Conventions on Environmental law

Sources
1. Treaties
2. Customs
3. General principles of international law
4. Opinion of jurists
Treaties
1. UNFCC
2. Paris Agreement
3. Vienna Convention for Protection of the Ozone Layer
4. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)/
Washington Convention
5. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Customary Law/ Customs

1. Precautionary Principle
2. Polluter pay principle
3. Transboundary Harm

General Principles of Law

Conflict

Judgements and Opinions of most Highly qualified publicists and

jurists

 Stockholm conference of 1972

Preceding the conference
1. Preservation of one kind of natural resources
2. Bilateral or multilateral number of parties
3. Specific convention wrt to the migratory in 1902 – mostly bilateral
treaties. There was no league of nations.

UN Charter does not make any reference to environmental protection

- Setting up of IUCN: Protection of wildlife and protection of
endangered specifies.
- In 1949 there was a UN conference on the utilisation and
conservation of resources [UNCCU]. Although many attended this
conference there was no implementation mechanism that was set
up.
- The 1949 conference was to also bring the developing countries to
the table. The fear was that it will lead to developing countries
asking for more resources for environmental protection.
- In the 1960s a proposal was put forth by the govt of Sweden to
prove that there is environmental degradation. At least a formal
talk should begin to discuss important environmental matters. This
led to the Stockholm conference of 1972.

1972
- Developing countries felt that the clauses regarding environmental
would stop their environmental development
- SD: 1972 -> 26 PRINCIPLES
 - Action Plan -> 109 recommendations (from all the participating
countries)
- Resolution ->
i) The ban on the test of nuclear weapons
ii) Creation of an international data bank on environmental data.
iii) To come up with a solution to deal with the linkages between
environmental conservation and development
iv) Creation of international environmental fund.
v) International institution set up to look forth into implementation
aspects

International institution created – UNEP

Date: 2-8-23
Stockholm declaration
Although the Stockholm declaration was a non-binding document, there
were certain principles. It laid the basis for certain future environment
declarations as well.

 Principle 2,3,5: Talk about the conservation aspect which includes

both present generation and the future generations. Eg. CITES,
Convention on Biological Diversity, Vienna Convention, UNFCCC

 Principle 4,6,7: Talk about safeguarding and managing the

wildlife and controlling the discharge of toxic substances. Eg.
CITES, UNCLOS,

 Principle 8-15: (P11) In a very loose sense points towards the

concept of sustainable development. Eg. Rio Declaration, World
Charter for nature.

 Principle 16-20: talks about reliance on scientific principles as

well evidence and places reliance on educating younger masses
about the environmental concerns and use fo mass media to
communicate such environmental concerns as well. Examples
nuclear convention, related to mostly scientific environmental

 Principle 21-24: Talk about transboundary harm and certain

liability rules. P21 is one of the most important principles and talks
about sovereign right over ones one resources and not exploit it at
the behest of other countries. Examples CBD, other transboundary
harm.

 Not adopted 20: Found the original principle very harsh and
talked about consensus in respect of every project and says that
state should prevent these activities. One of the greatest fears of
the developing countries was that the if we start consultation then
it would allow developed countries to enter and prevent
development.
 - 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987: UN environmental programme
which was a result of the draft articles. In 1981 within the aegis of
this particular organisation, the Montevideo was set up
- In 1982: The world charter for nature was adopted
- In 1983: The Brundtland commission was set up.
- In 1987: From Stockholm till the Rio Declaration – a proposal was
made before the general assembly, to have another conference
which would have various other documents.

The focus of the draft principles was on the shared natural resources –
they also talked about settlement of disputes, arising out of the shared
natural resources.

The mandate of 1981, the Montevideo programme on marine pollution

and the protection of the ozone layer was laid out. The Vienna convention
on protection of ozone layer was laid out in Montevideo programme.

A country applies to world bank for loan, then they have to list out any
and all environmental hazards. Only then if the world bank is satisfied its
not going to create any disastrous environmental impacts, then it can
give the loan.
The start of environmental concerns was initiated by world bank.

Out of Rio conference, two conventions came out: convention on

biological diversity and the UNFCC, both of which was negotiated by the
conference.

Date: 3-8-23 [No class]

Date: 4-8-23
 1978 - UNEP draft principles
- Focused on the use of shared on transboundary resources which
can be applied by the state.
- They related to Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration. They
also said that there should be reliance on scientific principles and
scientific conservation of resources. Also talked about the
additional requirement of Environmental Impact Assessment.

 1981- Montevideo Program

Was initiated to ensure periodic review of environmental law.
Three major areas it focused on:
1. Marine Pollution arising from land resources.
2. Protection of stratospheric ozone layer - Negotiations on the
second aspect formed the basis of the 1985 Vienna
Convention
 3. Disposal or transportation and handling of toxic and hazardous
waste - Negotiations on the third aspect formed the basis of
the 1989 Basel Convention.

1982 – World Charter for Nature was adopted by the UNGA

 First part talks about the general conservation aspects, recognising
that the resources of the earth are conserved as it is and the
ecosystems of the world must be protected.
 Second part talks about the natural resources that are being used
should not be used in excess but in proportion with their
regeneration capacity. Resources should be reused and recycled to
the furthest extent possible. The usage of the natural resources
should not be in excess of its renewability. There should not be
mass exploitation of those resources.
 Third part related to the implementational aspects, it
recommended the increasing of awareness through education, and
allowing the general public access to environmental problems and
resources at large.

1987 – Report of the Brundtland Commission was published.

 The committee was set up by the UNGA in 1983, known as the
World Commission on Environment and Development, aka
Brundtland Commission, named after the Norwegian PM who
headed the commission. This was an independent body.
 It said that the national and international authorities responsible
for environmental conservation should be strengthened and
wherever they are lacking, they should be institutionalised.
 The extension of capacity of environmental communication. The
commission believed that a lot of damage to resources has
occurred to the common resources due to the developmental
activities carried out by developed nations due to a lack of
communication.
 It also talked about the public participation and how it is extremely
important. The roots of the public participation lie in the Public
Trust doctrine. The resources belong to the public at large and the
government is a trustee.

Report Pointers
1. Refining the definition for Sustainable development.
2. Importance of International and National Authorities in
implementation of the principles
3. Strengthening of the UNEP
4. Preparing a Universal Declaration on Environment Protection
was recommended but never picked up.
5. They also called a UN Programme on Sustainable
Development.

Push was given for Rio Declaration.

UN Conference on Environment and development [“UNCED”]
resulted in 5 Major instruments, three of which were non-binding in
nature
1. Rio Declaration – precautionary principle and polluters pay found
recognition
2. Agenda 21 which was a guiding mechanism for implementation by
states resulting to their national legislations
3. Forest principles – non binding and concerned with forest
conservation accepts and control deforestation
4. Convention on Biological Diversity (Nagoya Protocol)
5. UNFCCC

 Rio Declaration

It contained 27 principles.

Talks about the preservation of resources, keeping human beings at the

centre and they are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony
with nature. [anthropocentric]

- Principle 2(d) was formed on P. 21 of Stockholm Declaration.

- Principles 3 and 4 talk about the right to development.
- P.5 eradication of poverty [taken from Brundtland]
- P.6 talks about the special situation of developing and
underdeveloped countries
- P.7 is CBDR
- P.8 talks about unsustainable forms of production and consumption
- P.9 talks about implementation of sustainable development by
implementation of scientific techniques.
- P.10 talks about public participation in environmental matters and
relies on the importance of involvement of public.
- P.11 talks about the enactment of effective environmental
legislations of the countries.
- P. 15 lays down the precautionary approach.
- P. 16 PPP.
- P. 17 talks about Environmental Impact Assessment shall be taken
into consideration for any developmental project at the national
level.
- P. 19 talks about transboundary environmental effect
- P. 27 talks about fulfilment of all principles laid down in the
declaration with a focus on the Principle of Sustainable
Development.

Date: 5-8-23
 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, ICJ, 2010

 Pacific Fur Seals (1893)

The issue was between US and UK. Near the territory of Alaska and US,
fur seals are found.
Concerned the usage of the fur seals. It is a very old judgement and
points to the shared natural resources and measures to be taken by the
state concerned in the conservation process.
The pacific fur seals are found in the Berring Sea.

A part of the Bering sea is shared by the UK, USA and Russian as well.
Till 1867, Alaska was with the Russia and after that sold to the USA. The
issue was the overexploitation of the fur seals. The demand kept on
increasing and pelage sealing also started. pelage sealing is the hunting
these seals in the oceans. Hunting them in the breeding ground was
easier but that was not meeting the demands. Although the demand was
increasing and they have moved in to pelage and thus has led to the
massive decline of these seals.

There was an agreement b/w UKand the USA but they were not obliged
by any of them. USA claimed that every fur seal was the national
property of the us as claimed by the usa. When the dispute was initiated,
the arbitral award was preceded by some negotiation which failed.
In the Arbitral award, it recognized the mass exploitation and
commercial exploitation by the USA, Russia and UK. There should be
complete ban in both of the states for 2-3 years and if 2-3 years not
possible, then impose a complete ban on the hunting including the ban in
both original or the pelage hunting. Although the ban was kept, when you
talk about the seals which is a migratory animal, no country can claim
the national jurisdiction on the migratory animals.

1893 award of the Arbitral Tribunal- final Award

The ban was not taken up. Argument wrt to having national jurisdiction
of any country over migratory birds was completely rejected and held
that it is a shared resources and all the nations involved in the
exploitation has to be involved in the conservation.
There could be complete ban on the hunting during the breeding period.
That is during the pre and post period of the breeding. This was the final
arbitral award. The final effect of the award was that the hunting could
take place but the pelage hunting was completely banned.
Seasons when the hunting could not be done in the either of the
territories. After this, the 1911 convention came between us, uk and the
Russia. This regulated the hunting of the seals and placed the
quantitative restrictions on the number of the seals each country could
hunt and the complete ban in pelage sealing and also the ban on hunting
during some seasons.

Date: 7-8-23 [presentation]

1. Lake Lanoux Arbitration Case [France v. Spain], 1957

2. Costa Rica v. Nicargua, 2018 ICJ

Date: 8-8-23
MODULE III: EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

Very brief period in the pre-independence era. In the pre independence

framework, we had the forest act of 1927 which was one of the central
legislations dealing with the regulations of the forest and forest
management regulated and control forest produce and take way the
rights from the community and the first became the state owned. Along
with forest conservation 1980 and forest rights act, 2006
Several small legislations on minute matters like pollution of air and
water. One such legislation is the Shore Nuisance Act (Bombay and
Kolaba) and the oriental gas company act dealing with the hauling of
water and then in 1858, we had the merchant shipping act, 1858. It dealt
with the pollution of the sea with the oil and how to punish the oil spills
and not how to prevent them. All of them dealt with the aftereffects and
how to penalize them and not preventive aspect. Also, Bengal 1905 and
Bombay 1912.
It focused on the developmental activities. When India received the
invitation for the Stockholm, the pm at that time firmed the committee of
human environment under the chairmanship of the Pitaambar Pant. it
was pointed out that all the protects focused in the dev activities and
there is a need to inculcate the conservation aspects where the dev is
concerned. This wAs the year 1972. Based on this, India made the
representation to the Stockholm conference.
India in the representation to the Stockholm - We recognize the
right to environment but at the same time, we will look at the dev and so
more lenient approach advocated by the India. Also, the major
degradation has been because of the developed nations and India have
just started and the elevation of poverty can’t be achieved without the
dev.
Under sci ministry, National committee on environment planning and
coordination- to look into the dev on environmental concern. Also, the
wildlife protection act in 1972. The enactment of the environment
protection act, there were many push toward it.
National committee on environment planning and coordination was
converted in 1980, the department of env and forest Established and in
1985, a separate ministry was formulated.
For the first time in the fifth five-year plan in 1974 and the committee
should look into the environmental concern if the big dev projects like
hydro.
Separate chapter in 6th plan and dev issue like the preservation of air,
water and marine life and the agricultural practices. Focused on the
environment and the development as a subject. Also, talked about the
resources like air, water and marine to be preserved.
b/w 5th and the 6th Five-year Plans
Water act, 1974- CPCB and the SPCB (Pollution Control Board)
Central by the central gov and essy in implementation but in the state,
state have to come up eith amendments in the water act as the act comes
under the concurrent list and so, the establishment of the pollution
control board act took 5-6 years and no state established for the initial
years.
Tiwary Committee
Tiwary Committee between the water and the air act in 1980 under the
then dy chairman of the planning commission, N.D Tiwari
Comprehensive environmental framework
Recommendations:
1. Creation of the institutional framework both at the central and
state level. As we had one department and not even a separate
ministry at that time. The conservation of environment as whole
was not dealt with.
2. Constitution of environmental courts at the districts level as well
and in every district, there should be one such court
3. EIA a compulsion for even small, projects especially for sensitive
ecological areas
4. EIA should be a continuous process and it should apply on any
expansion in that project as well
5. Comprehensive environmental code because if the lack of
legislation

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP

The SC found that there is a lack of environmental legislation even after
so many years of the independence and even after so, many years of the
Stockholm conference and that was also found in the initial cases of the
Bhopal Gas.
1986- Umbrella Legislation of the environmental protection act
When the air act was passed, the pollution control board’s ambit was
widened to oversee the air act as well

Date: 9-8-23 [CRE]

Date: 10-8-23 [Presentation]
1.
2. India Council for Enviro-Legal

Date: 11-8-23 [Off]

Date: 14-8-23 [Free class]
Date: 15-8-23 [Independence Day]
Date: 16-8-23 [CRE]
Date: 18-8-23
1. T Damoda Rao v. Municipal Corp. Hyderabad, 1987 AP HC
2. Mukesh Textile Mills v. Subramanya Sastry
3. Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttrakhand & Mohd. Salim v. State
of Uttrakhand
In both these cases, environmental protection was given to Ganga
and Yamuna by giving it personhood i.e gave them juristic
personality In the Mohd. Salim Case, the plaintiff provided that the
development activity was affecting the rivers.
The court propounded on the doctrine of Parens Patriae (the
monarch, or any other authority, regarded as the legal protector of
citizens unable to protect themselves). Miglani case said that the
Yamunotri glaciers, aquatic life, ecosystems surrounding it also fell
within the category of juristic person. The court appointed 5
persons for the protection of the rivers and represent their
interests. The chair was a board member of Namami Ganga Board
as well. Two independent members appointed. They looked at the
implementation of the first --.? The chair was supposed to elect 7
members from the state of Uttarakhand for community
participation.
They also encouraged community participation. This was influenced
by a central NZ law which granted rights to river body which
belonged to the indigenous community. Another aspect was that
the duty of the board to oversee that no Env. Projects override the
interests of the river body.