Answer structure

There will be a factual matrix. There will be sub – questions. We have to

identify issues, the relevant sections, relevant legal principles and
relevant citation (most prominent case law). Justify the maintainability of
petition, etc. based on question.

12/07/2022

PRINCIPLES THAT COVER KEY DIMENSIONS OF SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT

1.Equitable Distribution of Wealth

 Principle 1 of Stockholm Declaration
 Principle 15 of Rio Declaration
 Principle 12 and 14 of the Johannesburg Declaration
 One Planet Living- focused on creating sustainable communities
and livings across the glove. They assist the countries with
designing the sustainable development model.
 New Economic Foundation
- It is a British Think Tank – their main goal is to create an
Economic Policy Design wherein all stakeholders take part in
formulating a new economic policy and the stakeholders will
provide inputs and keep in mind the environmental concerns
that reflects the social cost as well.
- They focus on the macroeconomic policy of environment by
government (Read) – governmental spending, expenditure,
revenue that government does in pursuance of environmental
related projects.
- This way the stakeholder will be in a better position to give
proper inputs to design better legislative framework.
 Earth Charter, 2000
- It is one of the international instruments designed for goal of
Sustainable Development (“SD”).
- Draft in 1992 by UN SG
- The initiative was moulded by Marurice Strong (Canadian
Businessman) and Mikhail Gorbachev – they proposed for the Earth
Declaration to be presented in the Rio Conference. The UN SG then
consented to the draft proposal as the key objectives were similar.
- The core objective is to bring more sustainable and peaceful
society. The approach towards SD is highlighted in 4 principles:
1. Respect and care for communities – it is a human centric
approach. Respect the needs and demands of the people
(Anthropogenic approach).
 2. Ecological integrity- wider connotation is sovereignty over
resources and right to use those resources. You cannot tinker
the right of other countries’ right to use theirs. The requirement
of mass and proportional utilisation must be harmonised to
bring about SD.
3. Social and Economic Justice – Comprehensive picture of SD –
the three spheres of SD: economical, social and cultural
development under the umbrella of environment.
4. Democracy, non-violence and peace – Advocating the concept of
international relations, cooperation between countries, and
eliminate grounds which can lead to conflict, minimise
differences and issues that result in chaotic situation,
strengthen the global partnership.
- It is a more ethical approach towards SD

2. Economic equity and fairness

- Common but differentiated responsibility to achieve intra
generational equity. Principles highlighted here are:
1. Global partnership to achieve social, environmental and
economic development
2. Substantial transfer of finances and technology among the
developed and developing countries
3. Minimizing the gap the developed and developing economies
4. Supporting the sustainability of all the levels of economies
- Agenda of the Earth Declaration is to march towards SD and
identify common issues between the countries. Special attention
must be given to developing countries and extend cooperation and
assisting those LDCs to create a harmonious global partnership.
Especially in terms of technological know how and finances.
 Principle 9 of Stockholm Declaration clarifies this
principle in terms of availability of natural resources
underdeveloped and developing countries, utilisation of these
resources and how they can develop coordination and
cooperation among international communities.
 Principle 7 of Rio Declaration talks about Earth
ecosystem, preserving these resources and the responsibility
and onus between the developed and developing economies
 Principle 18 of Johannesburg Declaration talks about
economic development by coming together, global
partnership, liberalizing market and investing in local
economies
 Earth Charter- Principle 2 (b) – Promoting the common
goods, Principle 7 (c) – Promoting the development by
 transfer of environmentally friendly/sound technology;
Principle 8 (a) – Supporting International Cooperation of
scientific and technological transfer; Principle 10 (b) –
Enhancing the financial, intellectual, social, natural resources
and minimizing the burden of international debt (seeking
relief granted to developing and LDCs when they come
asking for loans and devise a plan to waive/ relax the norms
of the loan in terms of repayment)
 Principle 9 of One Planet Living classifies about equity
and local economy. Example: the need and necessity of
society can be highlighted and the government can design a
strategy at all tiers of government. This will help them
achieve the goal of SD.
 Core objective of new Economic Foundation is that when
classifying SD, we cannot neglect economic development. A
mechanism must be devised to balance ecological concern
and economic development. The think thank will work with
all the stakeholders to find solutions.

3. Intergenerational Equity
- We hold Earth resources in common. The onus lies on us to use and
manage it efficiently with a view to pass it on to the future
generation. The principles highlighted here are:
1. Environmental resources must be carefully managed.
2. Enhancing the value of natural asset for future generation
3. Equitably meeting the needs of present generation and allowing
the future generation to flourish
 Principle 2 of Stockholm Declaration
 Principle 3 of Rio Declaration
 Principle 37 of Johannesburg Declaration – realising
common goal to achieve SD
 Principle 4 of Earth Charter – Clause (a) and (b) –
Realising the dream and requirement of sustainable future

Kunal’s question – Why do we need so many conventions that say the

same thing?

Answer: The consensus was growing that we need more development

centric approach from human approach. Hence wee needed more
comprehensive conventions.

 One Planet living also focuses on it

  The new economic policy also relies upon new
economic development in terms of international co
operation

4. Precautionary Approach
- It is a management tool in terms of giving sanction/ approval for
development. One must look into the risk element of the project.
Once we know about the risk, you will be in a better position to
assess the risk and devise technology that is environmentally
friendly. The analysis and study of the risk element. It must
highlight assessment report.
1. Use of science and technology for social and environmental
development
2. Identification of risk behind development project
3. Environmental impact assessment with view to prevent
environmental degradation
- Maximum burden of the same lies on project proponent.
- Principle 18 in Stockholm Declaration – use of scientific
temperament, using more assessment management and tech to
assess the risk factor behind a development goal
- Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration
- Principle 37 Johannesburg Declaration
- Principle 6 of the Earth Charter – clause (a) and (b)

5. Right to Development
- A more sustainable human settlement planning which is required
for livelihood. The government must design a human settlement
plan. The resources and its utilization must be sustainable and this
duty and onus lies on the government.
- The duties are efficient use of resources, bring out sustainable
pattern of consumption, sustainable manufacturing, sustainable
business concerns.
- The human development parameter must be considered. This is in
accordance to population for a better human settlement.
1. Human development in harmony with environment
2. Realisation of right of individuals
3. Sovereignty over the resources
4. Responsibility of the state and the individual
- The responsibility of the State is instrumental in designing the
policy, and executing the same. Thus, the state must introduce
legislative framework and implement the same in accordance to the
parameters of SD.
- Individual’s duties are to have wise utilization of resources, the
three R’s, promote sustainable practices, etc.
- Principle 8 in Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 3 and 4 of the Rio Declaration
- Principle 7 of the Johannesburg Declaration
- Principle 10 of the Earth Charter
- Principle 9 of one planet living
- New Economic Foundation is silent

6. Internalization of Externalities
- Internalise the cost of the value of the product. You will be
justifying the social cost of the product in its price/ value of the
product.
- The government must include the social cost in the total cost of the
product. Under economics, the formula is internal cost + external
cost = social cost. The countries mut include the price fixation
measure to help restore the environment and help preserve it.
There cannot be complete prohibition, but it can be made
expensive, making it prohibitory.

7. International Co -operation
- Eliminating the practice of protectionism approach. Similarly,
country must strive hard to reach the top. Thirdly, practising
sustainable practices, labour standards and business practices.
- Protectionism refers to measures taken by countries to protect
their domestic approach against foreign trade. To facilitate
domestic players, there I extra burden on countries to have capital
to set businesses in those countries. Thus, instead of adopting
restricting trade practices, countries must strive to liberalise their
markets and take a flexible approach.
- GATT, 1994: Quantitative Restrictions are most important. Also
look into the General Exceptions in Article XX (b) and (g). The
Thailand Cigarette case, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres.
- Foreign investment, infusion of capital
- Price fixation and provision of incentives
- Principle 11 and 24 of the Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 12 of Rio Declaration
- Johannesburg Declaration is silent
- Principle 10 (c) of the Earth Charter

8. International liability
- Transboundary harm is the concept here. The Trails Smelter case
(USA v. Canada), Cofu channel case and the Gut Dam case are to
be referred here.
- If you advocate the principles of sovereignty, there will be
accountability for the harm that is caused by the country. It will
have effects like sanctions and restrictions. This rests between the
arrangement between the countries.
- If there is treaty to the effect, for example US - Canada, it will not
affect the verdict of the case. The treaty cannot be used as a shield.
They must acknowledge their liability.
- To understand the concept of liability, we must remember tortious
liability, compensation, vicarious liability, and especially the
absolute liability of the polluters. The jurisprudence must be
referred to understand the liability principles.
- In American jurisprudence, they refer to the deep pocket principle
which talks about the compensation principle and the quantum of
amount. The corpus of the corporations will be taken into
consideration while charging the amount of compensation. The cost
will also include the restoration of the environment, and the cost of
huma lives lost. This is a general understanding; ma’am will refer
to it later.
Note: Under this answer, any answer that you write, you should
refer to the Trails Smelter case (USA v. Canada), Cofu channel
case and the Gut Dam case
- Principle 22 of the Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 13 and 14 of the Rio Declaration
- Johannesburg Declaration is silent
- Principle 2 (a) and 13 (d) of the Earth Charter

9. Information, participation and accountability

- There must be coordination between all the relevant stakeholders
in decision making and policy making.
- Information is a vital component as it is required to suggest
policies. There must be dissemination of information which will
give clarity to make a suitable action plan for an economy. Each
state differs here, and hence information is vital key for policy
making.
- The Millennium Development Goals were converted to SDGs goals
which are more specific to developing and LDC’s countries. The
annual reports also give us information about how far we have
reached these goals. Thus, a correct action plan requires
information and participation.
- Principle 19 and 20 of the Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration
- Principle 26, 29 and 31 of the JBerg Declaration
- Principle 13 of the Earth Charter
- The basic framework of others are based on this concept only

10. Sustainable consumption and production

- Reduce Reuse and Recycle. Adopted a sustainable pattern of
consumption and if there is a greener alternative, opt for those
sustainable solutions.
- This includes water generation, utilisation of resources and special
attention to non- renewable resources. Adopt new lifestyle, invest
in research and development of alternative solutions.
- Principle 3 of Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 8 of Rio Declaration
- Principle 11 of Johannesburg Declaration
- Principle 7 (a) and (b) of Earth Charter

11. Strategic, coordinated and integrated planning to

deliver sustainable development, the green economy and
poverty alleviation:
- You have to look into the regional requirements. Example: the
tribal communities, places which are more prone to natural
calamities. There has to be integrated planning to have sustainable
development in these areas. You must highlight the primary goal
and get agencies to work towards that goal sustainably.
- Principle 13 of the Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration
- Principle 30 and 36 of the Johannesburg Declaration
- The others have references as well

12. Just Transition

- Whatever changes are being done to greener alternatives; the
transition must be sustainable. The change has to be adaptable. We
cannot be part and parcel for the made race of sustainable. The
capacity of LDCs or developing countries may not be like the
developed countries. The development agenda must have viability
and affordability. One must realise their limitations. This kind of
development must be just, must acknowledge the development
parameter so that country or whether there are feasible. A balance
must be met between human development and environment. This
will be just transition.
- Principle 12 of the Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 6 of the Rio Declaration
 - Johannesburg Declaration is silent
- Principle 9 (c) and 10 (b) of the Earth Charter
- Principle 9 and 10 of One Planet Living
- Green Economic Coalition also have referred to the same

13. Redefine well being

- GDP cannot be a sole indicator of development. We must
acknowledge the well being parameter, the happiness indicator,
employment, access to resources etc., must be taken into
consideration. That can be classified into an index to determine
development.
- Principle 5 of Stockholm Declaration
- Principle 1 of Rio Declaration
- Principle 7 (f) of Earth Charter
- Principle 8 and 10 of One Planet Living

14. Gender Equality

- ILO Circular, 2000:
- Fairness of Treatment of men and women in employment; respect
towards their needs; income security and social protection.
- They want the participation of women in policy making, especially
at the local and regional level including information exchange and
dissemination of information.
- Principle 20 of Rio Declaration
- Principle 20 Johannesburg Declaration
- Principle 11 (a) of the Earth Charter
- Green Economic Coalition and New Economic foundation do talk
about it as well.
Note: Look into the ILO’s programme for budget in 2000- 2001

15. Safeguard biodiversity and prevent pollution of any part of the

environment

- Every country must be able to legislate and make policies to

preserve biodiversity, etc.
- Biodiversity Act, Forests Rights Act, Plants Varieties Acts, Breeders
Rights, etc. have been legislated by India. India has also enacted
various nodal agencies. We have rules for maintaining registers for
biodiversity, coming up with comprehensive data, the IUCN’s
listing, etc.
- We are providing funds for R&D for biodiversity programmes. We
are taking assistance of tribal communities, local authorities,
panchayats, etc.
- Look into Agenda 21 for preserving and protecting marine
biodiversity
- General Discussion in Stockholm Declaration wherein they identify
the reasons for depletion of bio diversity – waste etc.
- Principle 4 of Rio Declaration
- Johannesburg Declaration is silent
- Principle 2 (a) and 6 (d) Earth Carter
- Principle 7 of One Planet Living
- Under Green Economic Coalition there was emphasis on furthering
the overall objective of the Johannesburg Declaration
- New Economic foundation references protecting biodiversity as one
of the most important aspects of SD

LEADERS IN THE SD

1. John Elkington
- He is the person behind Corporate Social Responsibility. He
worked extensively with companies and corporations to given them
better solutions for sustainable living.
- Along with Julia Hailes, they founded the Think Thank called
“Sustainability”.
2. Karl Henrik Robert
- He is an oncologist and did commendable research as cancer and
propounded the Natural Step Theory.
- Each country must go for adopting the four steps in the Natural
Step Theory which are:
1. Reduce and eventually eliminate our contribution to the
systematic accumulation of materials from the earth’s crust.
2. Reduce and eliminate our contribution to the systematic
accumulation of substances produced by society.
3. Reduce and eliminate our contribution to the ongoing physical
degradation of nature.
4. Reduce and eliminate our contribution to the conditions that
systematically undermine people’s ability to meet their basic
needs.

To help countries achieve the natural steps he suggested the

following:

1. Principle of Back casting

- Begin with the end in minds by doing a baseline analysis
- Move backwards from the vision to the present
- Move step by step towards the vision

This is referred to in the ABCD Planning Process:

A – Awareness and Defining Success
B – Baseline Current State
C – Creative solutions
D – Decide on Priorities
Note: Refer to the Pirana Dumpsite case, the NGT order, etc.

After Rio Declaration, there was shift in the focus in terms of the
frameworks implemented by the countries. It shifted to an
anthropogenic approach (human – centric) approach. Rio tried to
bring synergy between economic and environmental development.
This is reflected in Agenda 21. The three classic areas of discussion
here are:
1. Creating interface between trade and environment
2. Human rights and environment
3. National security and environment
a. Devising a policy that looks into a post- war and post-
disturbance situation.
b. Prohibiting these activities
c. Example: Afghanistan and Syria
d. The Environmental Modification Declaration: it gives new
dynamics to the issue of national security, especially in
context of natural disasters and natural environmental
consequence of war and disturbances. The Convention
 envisages that the countries will follow a synergy between
the environment and their military. National security must
be redefined and policy must be developed in such a way.

[Reference is again made to protectionism (Article III GATT) and

Quantitative Restrictions (Article XI) and General Exceptions under
GATT, 1994 (Article XX sub- paragraphs (b) and (d) and possibly (g)]

Agenda 21

The primary concern of Agenda 21 is divided into:

1. Green sustainable economy

2. Preserving the marine biodiversity
3. Preventing deforestation

Forest Principle – pattern on

cultivation and agriculture that
is sustainable, deforestation etc.
CBD Conventions Outcome of the Rio Declaration
Framework under UNCC
Deforestation
Agenda 21

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions

1. International co – operation
a. Strengthen international relation
b. Share technological know – how
c. Enter into bi-lateral arrangements to strengthen
commercial transactions, especially with developing
countries
2. Combating poverty
a. Eliminating poverty by looking into sustainable
management by generating employment. Look into the
basic necessity of the population by looking into ratio of
the population and providing the needs to them.
b. Public health infrastructure, birth rate and population
control.
3. Changing consumption pattern
4. Demographic dynamics and sustainability
a. Literacy
b. Age
c. Gender They are
evolving
d. Mortality parameters
that help SD.
 e. Population ratio
f. Employment ration
5. Protecting and promoting human health conditions
a. (Some facts) slide in her PPT talks about statistics. She
told us to refer to the latest numbers.
b. National Sample Survey, 2014

28/27 – Hritvik

Under Intellectuals Forum case, the SC put emphasis on Principle 4 of

the Rio Declaration; Broadland commission report ‘Our common future’.

- T N Godavardam vs Union of India (2014)- Preservation of wild

buffalos;
SC directed Chattisgarh Government to protect the wild buffaloes
- Section 3 (3) of EPA confers the powers on central government to
appoint any authority or delegate its function to such an authority.
- https://pxvlaw.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/lafarge-judgment-
stabilises-environmental-clearance-process/
- AP House vs Wednesbury: Wednesbury principle of
unreasonableness and the test of proportionality (Omkar Singh vs
Union of India; KS Puttuswamy vs Union of India) was used to
strike a balance.

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India (2000)

https://thelegallock.com/narmada-bachao-andolan-vs-union-of-india-ors

- Refused to interfere with the decision of the national government

while sanctioning a project (or not).

Goa foundation vs Diksha Holding Private Limited

https://www.slideshare.net/VishyVincent/goa-foundation-v-diksha-
holdings

- Again, the SC refused to interfere with the decision taken by the

Government.

M C Mehta vs Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 325

https://lawcirca.com/mc-mehta-and-union-of-india-1986-case-analysis-
oleum-gas-leak-case/#:~:text=MC%20Mehta%20v.-,Union%20Of
%20India%20(1986)%20Case,Analysis%20(Oleum%20gas%20leak
%20case)&text=The%20case%20also%20popularly%20known,the
%20issue%20of%20the%20environment.

- Absolute liability doctrine was established in India

 - In terms of drafting a proper scheme of compensation for the
workers (Public Liability Insurance Act)
- Reference American jurisprudence about the Deep Pocket Principle

MC Mehta vs Union of India (CNG Case)

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4863-mc-mehta-v-union-
of-india-air-2002-sc-1696-cng-vehicles-case-case-
note.html#:~:text=Lawyers%20in%20India-,MC%20Mehta%20v
%20Union%20of%20India%2C%20AIR%202002%20SC%201696,CNG
%20Vehicles%20Case)%2C%20Case%20Note&text=Background%20of
%20the%20case%3A,forward%20to%20protect%20this%20right.

- Precautionary Principle and Polluters Pay Principle was refenced

- Bhurelal committee Report

2- Hritvik

03/08/2022

42nd Amendment – Articles 39B, 47, 48, 48A, 51A(g) of the Constitution
have embodied the principles of environmental protection (right/freedom
to enjoy wholesome environment).

1. Municipal Corporation, Ratlam case

2. Kholamuhana Primary Fisherman Co-operative Society vs
State of Orissa
a. Chilka lake is a rich hub of biodiversity. The controversy
arose when the fishermen community protested against the
government of Orissa’s grant of lease in favour of non –
fishermen community to carry out activities in the lake.
Capture rights were given to fishermen and culturing rights
were meant for non-fishermen and other villagers not
members of the primary cooperative groups.
b. For many years, the Chilka lake witnessed subletting of
leased out fisheries of central and primary societies and
illegal encroachment, leading to many local fishermen losing
their livelihoods.
c. Large-scale business of prawn culture also contributed to this
trend, besides threatening the fragile eco-system of the lake.
Furthermore, the state government made an agreement with
Tata Iron & Steel Company (TISCO) for a joint-prawn culture
project in the land around Chilka Lake. This agitated the local
people even more.
d. However, the HC directed to modifying the notification
instead of abolishing this notification. The HC can question
 and object the notification if it is not in compliance with the
constituon,
e. Contextual: Ramsar Convention is a convention on
wetlands that was signed in 1971 in the Iranian city of
Ramsar. Read Articles 246 to 254 of the Constitution
(Chapter 11). Article 253 gives the Central Government the
power to give effect to international instruments.
i. Article 246
ii. Article 247
iii. Article 248
iv. Article 249
3. M. C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213 (The Span
Motel case)
https://lawcorner.in/m-c-mehta-v-kamal-nath-ors-critical-analysis-of-
span-motels-case/
a. The SC, for the first time, enumerated the principle of the
Public Trust Doctrine (https://blog.ipleaders.in/public-trust-
doctrine-india/ - All her cases are also from this article)
i. Common properties are for public use and cannot be
privately held.
ii. Maintain, preserve and protect the natural resources.
iii. In context with Article 21 and the power with the
MoFE.
4. Th. Majra Singh vs. Indian Oil Corporation
a. The Petitioner objected to the situation of a plant for filling
cylinders with liquefied petroleum gas. It absolutely was held
that the Supreme Court can only examine whether authorities
have taken all precautions with a view to determining that
laws handling environment and pollution are given
guardianship and a spotlight.
b. Though the case selected the idea of the precautionary
principle, it confirmed that the general public Trust Doctrine
has become a part of the Indian legal thought processes.
Within the High Court’s opinion, the doctrines could be a part
and parcel of Article 21 of the Constitution which there will
be no dispute that the State is under an obligation to
determine that forests, lakes and wildlife and environment
are duly protected. per the Court, the thought that the
general public includes a right to expect certain lands and
natural areas to retain their natural characteristics is finding
its thanks to the law of the land.
5. M. I. Builders vs Radhey Shyam Sahu
 a. The Supreme Court has applied the Public Trust Doctrine.
Here, the Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika (i.e. Lucknow City
Corporation) granted permission to a private builder to
construct an underground shopping complex which was
against the municipal Act and plan of Lucknow city. The state
supreme court ordered Mahapalika to revive the park to its
original position within a period of three months from the
date of the judgment and until that was done, to require
adequate measures and to supply necessary safeguards and
protections to the users of the park. the explanation
advanced by Mahapalika for the development of the
underground commercial complex was to ease the congestion
within the area. The state supreme court took judicial notice
of the conditions prevailing at the location and determined
that the development of an underground market would
further congest the world.
b. On appeal by the builders, the Supreme Court held that the
terms of agreement showed that the clauses of the
agreement are unreasonable, unfair and atrocious. The
Mahapalika, as a trustee for the right management of the
park, should be more cautious in addressing its properties.
The Court added that the land of immense value had been
handed over thereto to construct an underground shopping
complex in violation of the general public trust doctrine. The
upkeep of the park, due to its historical importance and
environmental necessity, was in itself a public purpose.
Therefore, the development of an underground market within
the grab of decongesting the world was wholly contrary and
prejudicial to the general public purpose. By allowing the
development, Mahapalika has deprived its residents, and also
others, of the standard of life to which they were entitled to
under the Constitution and under the Municipal Act.
Additionally, the Mahapalika violated the general public Trust
Doctrine and also the Court ordered the demolition of the
unauthorized shopping complex. The Court after hearing to
the both sides held that the whole structure to be dismantled
and the park to be restored into original condition leaving a
portion for construction for parking.
6. Murali S. Deora vs Union of India (2001) 8 SCC 7765
https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2022/03/15/murli-s-deora-v-union-of-
india-ban-on-smoking-in-public-places/
7. T. N. Dodavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
 a. Introduced the principle of continuous mandamus
b. https://blog.ipleaders.in/t-n-godavarman-v-thirumulpad-case-
study/
c. Constituting expert committees for such specialised cases
d. Referring content to amicus curie
e. Article 19 (1) (g)
f. Section 2(2) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1988
defines the term ‘forest’. Through this case, the SC expanded
the meaning of the term. It confers power on the Central
government to lease out forest land for non – forest purposes.
The details of what activities would be permitted,
authorizations, etc. are given in the schedule in the Act
itself.0020
8. N. D. Jayal vs Union of India (Tehri Dam Case)
a. SD is a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
b. The SC decided on a writ petition filed under Article 32 in
concern with the legal actions associated with the
environmental aspects of Tehri Dam.
c. Applying the precautionary principle, the Supreme Court of
India held that whenever there appears a state of uncertainty
due to lack of data regarding the extent of damage that is
likely to be caused, then in order to maintain the ecological
balance and preserve the environment and its resources, the
burden of proof that the said balance will be maintained rests
on the industry which contributes to causing such pollution.
The Court further decided on the ambit of “Right to
Development” which was observed to include more than just
economic well-being. The Right to Development also
guaranteed fundamental human rights.
d. https://www.probono-india.in/Indian-Society/Paper/
557_Khushboo%20Tibrewal%20-%20Judgment%20Analysis
%20-%20Batch%202.docx

Interface with Tort Law

 - By virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution, common law-based tort
rules continue to operate in India.
- Ma’am is reading out from her slides and talking about vague
concepts under tort law: liability, injunction, public nuisance,
negligence, etc. Its all in her slides.

Nuisance

1. J C Galstaun v. Dunia Lal Seal

In this case, The Calcutta High Court in 1905 is an important case of

nuisance. In this case, the plaintiff complained that the defendant
neighbouring factory (shellac factory) is discharging the refuse-liquid of
his manufactory into a Municipal drain that passes along the plaintiff’s
garden. He alleged that the liquid is foul-smelling and noxious to the
health of the neighbourhood and specially himself, and, secondly, that it
has damaged him in health, comfort, market value of his garden
property. The defendant admitting of foul-smelling of his liquid waste but
denied that it was noxious or that it had injuriously affected the plaintiff’s
property. He said that his factory has been licensed by the government
and has been conducting the manufacturing in a lawful manner (as a
treated trade effluent). Consequently, the Subordinate Judge decreed the
suit, granted a perpetual injunction and awarded the plaintiff a thousand
rupees as damages.

Key components of nuisance:

1. Unreasonable interference
2. Interference is with the use and enjoyment of land
3. Damage
4. Examples: Noise, vibrations, heat smoke, smell, gas, etc.

2. Radhey Shyam v Gur Prasad

In this case, Mr. Gur Prasad Saxena and others had filed a suit against
Mr Radhey Shyam and five others for a permanent injunction restraining
the defendant from installing and running a flour mill in the premises
occupied by the defendant. Gur Prasad Saxena had filed another suit
against the petitioner Radhey Shyam and five others for permanent
injunctions from running and continuing to run an oil expeller plant. The
plaintiff in the case alleged that the mill was causing noise which as a
result was affecting the health of the plaintiff. The court held that by
running a flour mill in a residential area, the defendant was causing the
nuisance which also effected the health of the plaintiff.

3. Ram Rattan vs Munna Lal

If the Defendant are setting up a power looms in area where there are a
lot more in operation, then a plea of nuisance cannot be taken up.

4. Dr. Ram Raj Singh vs Babu Lal

The Defendant carried on a trade that involved crushing bricks through a

brick crusher apparatus. The process resulted in the emission of a large
quantity of dust in the surrounding areas. The plaintiff, a medical
practitioner, lived adjacent to the defendant’s premises. He complained
that the dust emitted as a result of the plaintiff’s trade was detrimental to
his and his patients’ health. In this case, since a large number of people
were involved, the Plaintiff’s act constituted a public nuisance. However,
the court issued an injunction order against the defendant and granted
special damages to the Plaintiff.

Mass Torts

- It is jurisprudence developed in US of A.
- Such activity of the defendant, the harm caused by which is wide
and a large number or sector of society gets affected
simultaneously.
- Any entity or corporation wherein the employees are handling
hazardous substances and any accident / mishap occurs, a mass
tort litigation can be brought to hold these entities liability.
- It is based on the principle ‘no fault’ liability. It is not fully
developed in India but the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
introduced this concept.
- In this kind of liability, any unit where employees are handling
hazardous substances, any accident would be attributed to the
corporation only. Even if they were not directly at fault.
- If a certain incident is affecting the masses, in such a case, we can
file a single suit representing the claim of all the affected persons.
For this, the Central Government enacted the Bhopal Act under the
principle of parens patriae. It confers the power to the CG to
represent the claims of multiple victims in a single petition which
can thus be effectively monitored by the CG.
- After the Bhopal Gas accident, many cases were filed on behalf of
the victims since there was a problem in claiming compensation,
and many people, especially the ones having low financial status,
couldn’t afford to fight the case for a long time. These cases were
filed against UCC in Bhopal as well as in the USA. An effort was
also made to settle the matter outside of the court but it wasn’t
successful.
- Then, after some time passed, the Indian Parliament passed The
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985.
 According to Section 3 of the Act, the government of India had the
power to file cases on behalf of every citizen who was entitled to
claim the compensation. The government by Section 9 of the Act
introduced “The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and
Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985”.
- The Indian Government filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court of NewYork against UCC. But, the Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC) pleaded that filing the lawsuit in an American
Court was not convenient. They pleaded on the grounds of forum
inconvenient (it means that the Court can refuse to take
jurisdiction when the parties have more convenient forums to go
to). UCC said that since the accident took place in Bhopal and all
the evidence was there only so it was more convenient to try in
Indian Courts.
- So, Keenon J. accepted the plea of UCC and a new case was filed in
the District Court of Bhopal. The District Court ordered UCC to pay
a sum of Rs 350 crore to the victims. Next, UCC filed an appeal in
the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the judgment of Bhopal
District Court. This resulted in a decrease in the “interim
compensation” from Rs 350 crore to Rs 250 crore. Simultaneously
UCC tried to settle the matter directly with the gas victims outside
the court. But, M.W. Deo J. of Bhopal District Court put an interim
order on UCC to not to make any settlement with any victim until
further orders of the Court.
- Finally, after the propagation of the rule of Absolute liability, the
Court held UCC liable for the Bhopal tragedy. Though people had
their doubts that the Indian Judiciary won’t be able to handle the
situation. They thought that the wrongdoers would escape from
their liability under the rule of Strict liability but it didn’t happen.
The Indian Judiciary brought fair justice to the victims.
- The District Court directed UCC to pay an interim compensation of
Rs. 350 crores. The HC reduced the amount to Rs. 250 Crore. On
14th and 15th February 1989, the Supreme Court in Union Carbide
Corporation v. Union of India raised the sum of $470 million (Rs
750 crores) to the victims.

Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI - The following orders were passed by keeping in view The
Bhopal gas disaster (processing of claims) Act 1985. The present writ petition challenges the
constitutional validity of the Act saying that the Act is violative of the principles of Natural
Justice, and it is also violative of the fundamental rights which are guaranteed under article
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims that the Union of India is a
joint tort-feasor and since the Central government owns 22% share in UCIL thus the central
government is being a judge in its own case. Moreover, the Government only permitted the
establishment of the factories without any necessary safeguards, thus it has no locus standi to
compromise on behalf of the victims. It is also claimed that the victims and the legal heirs
were not consulted before the Act was passed, thus the State is in disguise of giving aid
destroying the rights that are inherent to the citizens and is demanding the citizens to
surrender their rights to the state. Thus, it is concluded by the petitioner that the vesting of the
rights in the Central Government is a bad and unreasonable strategy, and there is a conflict of
interest between the Central government and the victims. Section 3,4 and 11 of the Bhopal
Act1985 has been put forward as unconstitutional and are also in question in this case.
1. It was upheld that the Act was constitutional and the rights of the people was not
infringed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Section 3, 4 and 11 of the Act was held constitutional.
3. The Central Government was held legislatively competent in enacting such provisions
taking DPSP under Article 39 as a feasible defense for such competency.
4. The judges concluded that the “victims cannot be considered to be any match to the
multinational companies or the government with whom in the conditions that the
victims or their representatives were after the disaster physically, mentally,
financially, economically and also because of the position of litigation would have to
contend and in such a situation of predicament, the victims could be legitimately be
considered to be disabled” and therefore the power was vested in the Central
Government. Thus the Act mentioned comes under the purview of parens patriae.
The judges stated that “it is necessary for the State to ensure the Fundamental Rights
in conjunction with the Directive Principles of State Policy to effectively discharge
its obligations and for this purpose if necessary, to deprive some rights and privileges
of the individual victims or their heirs to protect their rights better and secure these
further.”
5. Moreover, it was mentioned that in this case hearing of the huge number of
individual petitions is not possible, thus this is in the best interest of the public.
6. In this judgement, the doctrine of necessity is considered of utmost importance.

3 days – Missing

23/08/2022
The Environmental Protection Act – It is the umbrella legislation
under which various other Acts have been enacted to protect the
environment. The mandate of the Stockholm conference also contributed
to finally decided on such legislation. It also helps create a
decentralization of power.

S. 3(3) of the EPA provides the Central Government with the power to
appoint an authority or authorities by such name or names as may be
specified in the order for the purpose of exercising and performing such
of the powers and functions under the Act. Example: Hazardous Waste
Management, Coastal Zone Authority, Assessment Authority for
compliance mechanism. In case the CG does not apppint such an
authority, HC or SC can be approached to issue such directions.

Such power is also found under s. 5 of the Act wherein the Central
Government may , in the exercise of its powers and performance of its
functions under this Act, issue directions in writing to any person, officer
or any authority and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to
comply with such directions.

1. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs Union of India

Court can direct CG to constitute authority to issue orders regarding

relocation of industries in case of high levels of pollution.

2. F B Taraporwala vs Bayer India Limited

The task in the present case needs expertise. Thus, it directed the CG
under s. 3(3) to constitute an authority to look into the relocation of a
chemical industry.

By virtue of s. 3(3), authorities are constituted. These authorities have

powers to issue appropriate directives under s. 5 in terms of removal of
pollutants, relocation, etc. These authorities can order stoppage or
closure of businesses which are responsible for degrading the
environment. Even stoppage of electricity and water to these businesses
and units.

Such a direction or order by the specially constituted authority can be

challenged in the NGT. It can also be challenged under 19(1)(g) or 21
before the HC. Under the Air Act/ Water Act, there is a Pollution Control
Appellate Board which can be approached as well.

When compensation is being awarded to an aggrieved party, the amount

is to be diverted towards the environmental protection funds. These
funds will aim to restore the environment.
 3. S. Jagannath vs Union of India (Shrimp culture case)

https://www.lawnn.com/s-jagannath-vs-union-of-india/ phar

The issue related to the Powers vested with the Coastal Zone authority
and the permissible activity in fragile coastal area. The fishermen
community carried out a shrimp culture cultivation in operation in the
fragile coastal area. The 1991 notification regarding aquacultural
industries operation in sensitive coastal areas were to fall under CRZ I
classified zone. These activities were prohibited, unless permitted by the
CG. Through the petition, the petitioner approached SC under Article 2
to enforce the notification.

The SC remarked that all these aquaculture industries, along with there
operations were to be shut down. A stoppage order was issued. These
industries shall remove the shrimp culture from the coastal area. If the
fishermen were following the traditional practices, they would be
permitted. The SC reiterated the need for specially constituted
authorities for such issues. The fishermen community have to pay taxes
for conducting permissible activities.

Under the CNG litigation case, the SC reiteration the constitution od

authority under s. 3(3). Thus, the Bhurelal Committee was constituted.

S. 6: Rule making power of the Central Government

- CG has authority to fix rules regarding trade emission, effluent

discharge, standards for air, water, soil and noise control, etc.
- They can issue SOPs for hazardous substances
- CH has power to make rules regarding location of the business /
entity, especially in a residential zone.
- If it is an industrial area, rules will be made in regard to it.
- Refer to the F B Taraporewala case.

S. 7: Prohibition on emission / discharge of environmental

pollutants

- It gives CG the powers of injunction and restriction in case of any

deviation from the rules prescribed under s. 6. The penalty for the
same is u/s 15 of the EP Act.
- The Draft Amendment Bill of the EP Act (July 2022) was brought
about to change the punitive nature of the Act. Essentially, in s. 15,
the penalty is a blanket provision. There is no distinction between a
minor or major offence. The fine and/or imprisonment is the same
for every kind of offence. This is unlike the Air and Water Act
wherein there is a clear distinction wrt to the nature of offences.
 - Under the draft scheme, different punitive measures will be
prescribed. The government is thus seeking recommendations for
inserting s. 14A.
- Another drawback of the EP Act is that it has pre-dominance over
other environmental legislations. However, s. 24(2) states that in
case of conflicts between the provisions of the Water Act and Air
Act, they will prevail over the EP Act.

S. 8: Person handling hazardous substances to comply with

procedural safeguards

- The Employer must have all the safety protocols as required under
the EP Act. Any deviation from the same will result in a penalty.
- ‘handling’ and ‘hazardous substances’ are defined in the Act. They
are also regulated by the Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations, 2009. Eg: Nuclear waste disposal needs a different
system of disposal under the Atomic Energy Act.
- K Purshottam Reddy vs Union of India: The Petitioners had a by-
product of their manufacturing – used oil. Under the relevant rules,
the reprocessed used oil has to be treated first which was not
complied with. The authorities cancelled their license.

S. 9: Furnishing information to authorities.

- In case of not complying with the above provision, a penalty will be

attracted.
- It is not a serious offence. Only fine is the punishment. In case of
continuous failure, the fine will be highrt.

S. 10: Penal Provisions:

- Powers of entry and inspection: S. 165, 100, 101, 102 CrPC

S.16: Liability of management in case of company. In sub-section (2) it
could be any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the
company.

s. 17: Liability of the officers of the government. The Head of Department

would always be held guilty in case of contravention of their duties.

s. 19: Provision for citizen’s suit. It essentially states that by virtue of s.

19, any officer authorised by government can approach the Court and file
suit for the degradation of environment. In addition to that, sub-clause
(2) states that a private entity or individual can apply to the Court as well
where a 60 days’ notice will be served to the government in reference to
the intention to approach the Court.

Prataplal Tehi vs State of Maharashtra: https://lexforti.com/legal-

news/can-the-right-to-file-a-complaint-against-any-wrongdoing-in-the-
society-be-used-by-anyone-and-everyone/
 - S. 43 and Air Act and s. 49 of the Water Act also subsumes such a
provision that widens the ambit of locus standi in such cases.
- Scope of PIL is wider than s. 19

s. 20: Information reports and returns: All information and reports that is
required to be maintained will be done by the authority appointed by the
Central Government.

s. 22: Bar of Jurisdiction

No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit regarding any
action taken or order or direction issued by the Central Government or
any other authority under this Act.

s. 23: Delegation of powers by CG to an authority/state

government is possible.

M C Mehta vs Union of India, 2009 (6) SCC 142 (Aravalli Hills Case):
https://lawtimesjournal.in/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-delhi-ridge-case/

s. 24: Pre-dominance of EPA over other specialised legislations

- S. R Oil Limited vs Haral Utkarsh Samiti

- Halar Utkash Samiti vs State of Gujarat (1999)

- Dileep B Nevartia vs Union of India (2014): Issue was regarding two

statutes – Air Act, Noise Regulation, 2000; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

- Ajay Dubey vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2010)

(Core area and buffer area classification just like the Aravalli hills case)

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Constitution of central Pollution Control Board (s. 3) and State Pollution

Control Board (s. 4).

Powers are vested with Central Government for CPCB and State
Governments for SPCB. SPCB also have to follow orders issued by
Central Government.

S. 16: Functions of CPCB

1. Advise the Central Government on any matter concerning the

prevention and control of water pollution
2. Co-ordinate the activities of the State Boards and resolve disputes
among them
3. Provide technical assistance and guidance to the State Boards,
carry out and sponsor investigations and research relating to
problems of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement
 of water pollution. This includes constitution of expert committees
to give technical guidance to SPCBs.
4. Establish or recognise a laboratory or laboratories to enable the
Board to perform its functions under this section efficiently
including the analysis of samples of water from any stream or well
or of samples of any sewage or trade effluents.
5. Plan and cause to be executed a nation-wide programme for the
prevention, control or abatement of water pollution. This program
is identified in consultation with the Central Government. Under
this mission, States that identify their own modalities and
implement in their state.
6. Plan and organise the training of persons engaged or to be
engaged in programmes for the prevention, control or abatement of
water pollution on such terms and conditions as the Central Board
may specify.
7. Organise through mass media a comprehensive programme
regarding the prevention and control of water pollution.
8. Collect, compile and publish technical and statistical data relating
to water pollution and the measures devised for its effective
prevention and control and prepare manuals, codes or guides
relating to treatment and disposal of sewage and trade effluents
and disseminate information connected therewith.
9. Lay down, modify or annul, in consultation with the State
Government concerned, the standards for a stream or well:
Provided that different standards may be laid down for the same
stream or well or for different streams or wells, having regard to
the quality of water, flow characteristics of the stream or well and
the nature of the use of the water in such stream or well or streams
or well.

S. 17: Functions of State Pollution Control Board

1. Plan a comprehensive programme for the prevention, control or

abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and to
secure the execution thereof.
2. To advise the State Government on any matter concerning the
prevention, control or abatement of water pollution.

S. 19: Power of State Government to restrict the application of the

Act to certain areas.

It can be designated as a critically polluted area. The direction for the

same will be notified by the SPCB. The concerned unit holders must then
adhere to this standard which is different from other units in the city.
Attention is given to these critically polluted areas.
 - Water Pollution Control Area

S. 20: Power to obtain information

- SCPB can visit any unity and seek relevant information in regards
to the standards that are to be put while operating the unit.
- The detailed information must be furnished by the unit holder to
the SPCB.
- SPCBs have committees constituted specifically for this function.

S. 21 and 22: Collection of sample and reports analysing the

sample

- The procedure is similar to EPA.

- In s. 22, the samples are to be tested by government analysist. S.
53 and 54 of the Water Act gives these government analysts the
power to give reports which have evidentiary value. This is pari
materia with s. 14 of the EPA.
- SPCB can seek expertise for scientific input and technical
assistance from the CCPB.

S. 23: Inspection

- Same as EPA (read from above).

- S. 94 of the CrPC also has to be referred to

S. 24: Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting

matter, etc

- State Government is authorised to issue an appropriate order in

this manner.
- Sub section (b) provides for issuing order against individual who
impedes the flow of water.
- Kamal Nath Case (Span Motel Case) is to be referred here.

S. 25: Consent procedure and permit system under the Water Act

- Consent to Establish [ Note to Khushi: Add the research from

KCO internship]; Documents required:
o Location of Industry / site plant
 It is not classified as fragile area/fragile ecosystem
[area must not fall within 5km radius of a sensitive
area/zone]
 It does not fall within 25 km of major human settlement
 It does not fall within ½ km of riverine system
 It does not fall within ½ km of high tide line
 It does not fall within ½ km of a railway line or a
highway line
  It does not fall under ‘critically polluted area’
o Project Report regarding nature of operation, composition
of business (hazardous or not), etc. Essentially, the SPCB has
to look into the outcome of the business that is operating and
how it will affect the environment. Thus, the project report
will help them grant consent to the operating unit
o Land Documents
 Agricultural land or non - agricultural land
 Who is owner, or whether it is leased
 Whether it falls under the Land Acquisition Scheme
o Pollution Control Instrument
o Partnership deed or MoU in respect of the land in the
name of the project proponent
- Consent to Operate
o After application for Consent to Establish, you will have to
apply to consent to operate
o If there was a business before enactment of the Act, the
consent has to be complied with.
o Documents:
 Certificate of Consent to Establish by SPCB
 Layout Plan of the location
 Analysis/report of the waste generated out of your
manufacturing process
 Balance sheet duly attested by CA
 Details of the land

These applications are now managed online.

- If there is a non - compliance, document is missing, etc. the consent

can be withdrawn / cancelled.
- Consent to Establish looks into categories of the industry (Red,
White, Orange, etc.) – White category industries are exempted from
this provision.

Category Consent to Establish Consent to Operate

Red 5 – 7 years 1 – 3 years
Orange 3 – 5 years 3 – 5 years
Green 1 – 5 years 10 – 15 years
- Sub clause (1) provides that a person must operate a certificate for
CTE and CTO and details will be submitted to SPCB.
- Sub clause (2) provides for application of consents to be made in a
prescribed manner.
o Vijaynagar Education Trust vs Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board, AIR 2002 Kar 123
S. 26: Even if the establishments are being operated before the
commencement of this Act, s. 25 would still be applicable. The penalty
for non-compliance will also be applicable in this case [3 months to 1.5
years; In case of continued, the penalty may increase; fines, etc.]

S. 27: Refusal or withdrawal of consent by State Board

- S. 25(4) empowers the SPCB to grant consent with conditions. If

the SPCB deems fit, they may impose an appropriate condition to
issue to the CTE and CTO. If not complied, the SPCB may withdraw
the consent under this section.
- S. 25(2) provides for the procedure to apply for the consents. In
case the same has not been done, it can be withdrawn.

S. 27(2): if the conditions imposed by SPCB are found to be reasonable

after sending in an application under s. 33, the SPCB has the power to
review and amend such conditions.

Example: the nature of business is hazardous (production of chemicals),

and effluents are to be discharged which may affect public health and
environment, SPCB can direct the unit to establish an effluent treatment
plant (ETP). Making units establish an ETP can be termed as
unreasonable. It is impractical and must be done after thorough review
of the business of chemicals, its effects and consequences, nature of
chemicals, etc.

However, after modifications of order, the unit is still in non-compliance

the penal provisions will apply.

S. 28: Appeals

Any person/unit, aggrieved by the order of the SPCB will lie before the
Appellate authority. The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the
receipt of the order. The delay can be condoned off as well. After 2010,
the appellate authority is the NGT.

(1): Time limit

(4): Disposal of Appel after hearing the parties

(5): If the condition was unreasonable, the appellate authority can do the
two things:

(a) Condition shall be treated as annulled or be substituted for a

reasonable condition
(b)Continue the condition as it is reasonable or reduce it to an
extent where it becomes reasonable

S. 29: Revision
 - As a last resort, under s. 29, the aggrieved party can a file for a
revision petition with the State Government. The State
Government, on satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of
any such order, may pass any appropriate order.
- The Revision is not maintainable if the aggrieved party has not
preferred an appeal to the appellate authority.

[Side note: Kunal is almost about to die in this class. I can see his soul
leave his body.]

S. 33: Judicial Restraint Orders

- Under s. 33, the SPCB can move an application to issue a

restraining order against a polluting unit.
- The magistrate can issue the order to:
o Prohibit or prevent the entity from discharging the pollutants
into water bodies
o Removing pollutants from the water body – if the unit fails to
do so, the Magistrate may issue an order to direct the SPCB
to remove such pollutants

Under s. 133 of CrPC: Conditional order for removal of nuisance: This

has to be read in consonance with s. 33 where Magistrate has the
power to issue a conditional order for removal of nuisance.
- S. 133 is general in application and its scope and ambit is wider
than s. 33 of the Water Act.
- Under s. 33, there are certain procedural requirements which
needs to be complied before issuing a conditional order. No such
procedural requirements are required under s. 133 and immediate
relief directly can be given.
- However, special law (s. 33) will always prevail in case both reliefs
are mentioned in the averments.

Delhi Bottling Company Private Ltd. vs Central Board for Prevention and
Control of Water Pollution, AIR 1986 Del 152: The Petitioner Company
procured consent from SPCB to manufacture the bottle caps. The
averments of the SPCBs were that since all trade effluents were resealed
in Yamuna and they exceed the limits sanctioned, an order was issued to
restrain the Petitioners from releasing the trade effluents. SPCB applied
to the Magistrate under s. 33 of the Water Act. This order was issued +
order to set up an ETP. An appeal was filed u/s 482 of the CrPC against
the order of the Magistrate. The Petitioner highlighted that SPCB did not
comply with s. 21 of the Water Act (collection if sample) and failed to
divide the samples as per the procedure laid down in the Act. The Court
held that the particular sample will not be held inadmissible.
 - Tata Tea Ltd. vs State of Kerala: Kerala PCB approached the
Subdivisional Magistrate under s. 133 of the CrPC to injunct the
Petitioner from releasing the pollutants in the water. They
approached to seek a restraining order against the Petitioner. The
order was issued. The Petitioner filed a suit in the HC u/s 482 of
the CrPC against this order. [why didn’t she conclude the case??]
- By s. 60 of the Water Act, the statute has overriding provisions over
other general laws and rules.
- Nagarjuna Paper Mills Limited vs Sub-divisional Magistrate, 1987
CrLJ 2071: Andhra HC issued that directions issued by Magistrate
are not in conflict with SPCB’s directive, the provisions under s.
133 is still maintainable.
- Under the Water act, by means of the 1988 amendment, the citizen
suit provision (s. 49) has been incorporated in the water and air ct.
any individual or organisation can approach the Judicial Magistrate
to seek directions under s. 33, provided that 60 days’ notice is to be
nerved to the SPCB.

Abdul Hamid vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. 1989

CrLJ 2013

State of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedia Leather and Liquor Limited 2013 (7)
SCC 389: Both sections are curative, preventive and penal. Both can
mutually coexist and the question one replacing the other will not arise

Section 33A: Appropriate directions against polluting industries

- Closure or stoppage of business and activity, stoppage of electricity

and water supply are some directions that can be taken by the
SPCB
- Penalty: 1.5 years up to 6 years with fine
Penal Provisions

S. 42: The penalty is for certain acts under the Water statute
(minor offences)

- Unit holder is destroying the property of SPCB

- Individual is obstructing the SPCB or authorised officer in
performing their duties
- Unit holder fails to inform about any incident or accident in the unit
- If the project proponent is making false statements and suppling
fabricated document to seek consent from SPCB

S. 41: In case of non - compliance with s. 20, 32, 33 and 33A

(minor offences)

S. 44: Penalty for the violation of s. 25 and 26

S. 25: Procedure for seeking consent

S. 26: Retrospective application of seeking consent

Any contravention of the same will be treated a serious (major) offence

with imprisonment of 1.5 years up to 6 years with fine.

S. 45 also talks about enhanced penalty for the subsequent conviction.

The imprisonment should not be less that 2 years that may extend upto 7
years with fine. For example, you have already been convicted for an
offence under the water Act and the failure continues (or another
contravention occurs), then enhance penalty will apply.

S. 46: Publication of the name of the offender and unit to be highlighted

in the newspaper

Offences by Companies (s. 47)

Actual participation is not necessary. The threshold foe conviction is that

they had reasonable knowledge, and hence consented about the
contravention.

UP Pollution Control Board vs Modi Distillery 1987 (2) SCC 684:

https://thelegallock.com/u-p-pollution-control-board-v-modi-distillery-and-
others

(s. 204 CrPC: Process of issue by Magistrate even applicable under s. 33

of the Water Act)

S. 48: Offences by Government Department

- HOD will be responsible along with the officer in charge of that

particular department
S. 61: power of Central Gov to supersede CPCB

For one year, CG can supersede the responsibilities of the Central

Pollution Control Board, by notification in the official gazette. This is
done when the CPCB is not adhering to its duties and obligations.

Similarly, s. 62 provides for the State Government will supersede the

SPCB with the same conditions and procedure.

S. 63: Power of CG and SG to make rules

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

- Amended in 1981

To be read with 268 and 133 CrPC

Chapter XIV IPC – Offences affecting public health and safety

Offences that can be clubbed within this statute: 268 287 288 290 291
294 IPC

S 14 and 15: Delegation of powers

Lipton India Ltd vs State of UP, AIR 1996 Allhabad 173

S 43 (Citizen’s suit provision (just like s. 49 in Water Act)

S. 16 and 17: Functions of CPCB and SPCB

- May establish laboratory to ensure compliance under the Air Act

S. 18: CG’s and SG’s to give directions

S. 19 same: Declaring any area as pollution control area where a

different standard of compliance can be prescribed

S. 22: (diff from Water Act): empowering SPCB to give directions and
prohibiting the party whosoever exceeding the emission levels

Provision Air Act Water Act

Process of granting 21 25
consent
Judicial Restraint 22A 33
Order
Power to furnish 23 20
information
Detailed procedure to 25
obtain information
Entry and inspection 24 23
Process for sample 26
collection
Appointment for 29, 27 53, 54
analyst and report of
analyst respectively
[note: s. 14 in EP Act]
Filing an appeal 31 28
Order of closure and 31A 33A
stoppage
Punitive measures 37 – severe offences 41
21, 22, 31A (1. 5 years
upto 6 years; fine)
38 – minor offences –
3 months and fine
(upto 10,000)
Offences by 40, 41 respectively 47
Companies and
Government
Overriding effect of 52 60, 24 in EP Act
law

One day: 13/09

The issue was regarding both noise and air pollution. Does appellate
authority have jurisdiction to review orders under Air Act? No.

Cal HC identified that the review order was without jurisdiction. The
revision application can only be filed with the State Government. Erven
after, the apt remedy is before the NGT.

Animal Feeds Dairies and Chemicals Limited v/s Orissa State Prevention
and Control of Pollution Board

Sections referred: 14(2) 15 31A of the Air Act

The Central Government has power of delegation. The question was that
can the Member Secretary issue order under s 33A for a stoppage of
closure order? For delegation of power, the CG has to provide some
evidentiary documents.

In absence of any clear evidence as to the delegation of powers. The

member secretary can issue orders under s, 33A for stoppage or closure
orders. In absence of the order being passed without jurisdiction, the
order was set aside.

Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000

- Any undesired noise, exceeding beyond the standard assigned by
the noise rules will affect the public health and overall
environment. This is because it has been interpreted it under
Article 21.
- It is an underrated problem which has disastrous repercussions o
- Noise above 45 decibel will affect human health
- 30 dB (WHO) just like whispering; 60 dB (normal), 90 dB (noise)
- Rule 3 of the “Rule’ gives the permissible level of the sound
- Noise under EP Act is identifying as affecting peaceful livelihood
and health resulting in illness
Rule 4

Noise should not exceed the ambient sound quality under schedule III.
The authority identified in this Act is the DM or other official od the
government who will look into prohibiting and issuing appropriate
direction.

The SPCB and Pollution Control Committee with CPCB will compile data
and statistics in relation to noise regulation, adherence limits, the decibel
limits and the preventive measures for regulating the noise pollution

Noise Pollution Monitoring System – 70 stations in metro cities to

identify levels of noise pollution. The governments collect data and
collate it and submit it to the CPCB.

Rule 5

Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system. –

(l) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except

after obtaining written permission from the authority. –

(2) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night
(between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for
communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, conference
rooms, community halls and banquet halls.

Loudspeakers, horns, sound making construction devices, etc.

Exemptions are available in emergency situations which exceed the
decibel levels. The upper limit here is 10 dB above the level permissible
in the open space in that classified area.

Exemptions on noise pollution 15 days. The government si to notify these

days in the gazette and the maximum possible level of the same.

Rule 5 also looks into non-usage of these devices in silent areas. In

residential areas, the permissible decibel levels are not to be crossed.

Rule 6

Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.-Whoever, in any

place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the following
offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act :-

(i) Whoever, plays any music or rises any sound amplifiers,

(ii) Whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either,
musical or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds any
instrument, or (
(iii) Whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances
of a nature to attract crowds.

5 years of imprisonment and penalty upto Rs. 1 lakh in case of non-

compliance. 5000 Rs per day in case of continuing. In case of continuing
for one year: 7 years of imprisonment.

The country’s pollution watchdog, the Central Pollution Control Board

(CPCB), has proposed a set of fines ranging from Rs. 1,000 to Rs.
100,000 for people violating noise pollution rules, including measures for
the repeat offenders.

The new fines have been proposed in response to a set of cases going on
in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) regarding noise pollution wherein
the applicants complained that despite several court orders, the problem
of noise pollution continues in the national capital. They had complained
that by the use of music systems, public address systems etc. during
weddings or other functions, the noise being created at odd hours was
adversely affecting the health of the citizens.

For instance, violation of norms regarding the use of loudspeakers/public

address system can result in seizure of the equipment and a fine of Rs.
10,000 upto Rs. 1,00,000. Similarly, violation of noise pollution norms
regarding the use of diesel generator sets can result in sealing of DG sets
and a fine of Rs 10,000 to Rs 100,000 depending upon its size. The
violation in cases of sound-emitting construction equipment can result in
a fine of Rs 50,000 and its seizure or sealing.

Rule 7

Complaints to be made to the authority-

(1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards
by 11) dB (A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any
area/zone, make a complaint to the authority.

(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the
violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other
law in force.

This authority is the authority designated under this Act.

Rule 8

On receipt of information or complaint that ther eis a non -compliance,

the authority can issue appropriate directions in terms of controlling and
prohibiting noidse pollution and restricting that person from causing the
same.

Clause (2) provides that the competent authority can suo motto take
cognisance of the issue.

Cases

1. P A Jacob vs Superintendent of Police, AIR 1993 Ker 1

Facts: P.A. Jacob, the petitioner, belonged to a denomination of

Christianity, known as the ‘Knanaya’ Christians. He sought permission to
hold meetings using sound amplifiers to propagate his religious views.

The second respondent – the Sub-Inspector of Police, granted permission

to do so but withdrew the permission later, apprehending that views of
the petitioner may incite to violence the conservatives in the Church. In
reality, though, this apprehension was proved wrong, as the meeting
could be held pursuant to interim orders of this Court without any
disturbance.

The contention of the petitioner was Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and
Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion).
Held: Justice C.S. Nair said that “With great respect, I find it difficult to
agree with the view of the Gujarat High Court in Indulal v. State, that
freedom of speech includes freedom to use sound amplifiers. In Francis v.
Chief of Police, relied on by the Gujarat High Court to deliver the verdict,
Pearson L.J. had pointed out that: “Some regulation of the use of
loudspeaker is required in order that citizens who do not wish to hear
what is being said may be protected.” Therefore there were grounds to
not rely blindly on the verdict of the case of Francis v. Chief of Police as
jurists had had reservations about that verdict too. Justice Nair referred
to US cases too. The use of loudspeakers was not considered in the
purview of free speech and expression by the First Amendment of the US
Constitution. The same view was reiterated in Lehman v. City of Shaker
Heights, a US case, where it was opined that though the petitioner had a
right to express his views to those who wish to listen, he had no right to
force his message upon an audience incapable of declining to receive it.
That apart, the freedom guaranteed is freedom of expression of ideas, not
freedom of modes of expression. A loudspeaker is a mechanical device,
and it has no mind or thought process in it and therefore is not human.
The right of speech or expression is a right accorded to a human faculty.
A right belongs to human personality, and not to a mechanical device.
Further, it was stated that Article 21 guarantees freedom from
tormenting sounds. What is negatively the right to be let alone, is
positively the right to be free from noise. Therefore, the petitioner was
prevented from using loudspeakers.

But the Court did not condone the wrongful act of the Superintendent of
Police. It was stated that if the Police, charged with the power to
regulate the use of loudspeakers under the Kerala Police Act, acts
beyond the authority law confers upon him, it would be liable to be
interdicted. The permission was denied to the petitioner to use a
loudspeaker on the ground that holding meetings with loudspeakers
would lead to a law and order situation. This reason appeared to be an
after-thought, and for a fact, the hazards imagined by the Sub-Inspector
of Police were indeed unreal.

The final verdict was passed stating that in the absence of any valid
ground, cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner was
arbitrary. While the petitioner had no fundamental right to use a
loudspeaker, he was indeed free to avail amenity of using a loudspeaker
in a reasonable manner. The Sub-Inspector of Police had to permit the
petitioner to hold meetings with the use of loudspeakers of a box type,
for purposes of holding meetings as in which the output from the
loudspeaker did not exceed the range necessary to reach a willing
audience, confined in a reasonable area.

2. Church of God vs KKR majestic Colony Welfare Association,

2000 (7) SCC 282

The appellant, a minority institution was in the practice of using musical

instruments such as drum set, triple ganga, guitar etc. The respondent
welfare Association filed a Criminal O.P before the High Court of Madras
for a direction to the authorities [Superintendent of Police] to take action
on the basis of the letter issued by the Joint Chief Environment Engineer
of the TMPCB. In High Court it was contended by the Church that the
petition was filed with an oblique motive in order to prevent a religious
minority institution from pursuing its religious activities and the Court
cannot issue any directions to prevent the church from practicing its
religious beliefs. The High Court balanced the act by giving directions to
the religious minority institution to bring down the noise level by keeping
the speakers at a lower level. Aggrieved by the said order the
respondents appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held
that India is a country with many religious beliefs and faith, numerous
communities or sects of people reside in the same area and locality. Each
reside in a sense of harmony and peace. The Constitution has given
religious institutions fundamental right to practice, profess and
propagate. But the Court held that 'undisputedly no religion prescribed
that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of other nor
does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of
drums. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities
which disturb old, infirm persons, students or children having their sleep
in the early hours or during day time or other persons carrying on other
activities cannot be permitted. The Court while adjudicating the appeal
observed that in the present case, the contention with regard to the right
under Art. 25 or Art. 26 of the Constitution which are subject to 'public
order, morality and health' are not required to be dealt with in detail
mainly because no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are
required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of
drums. In any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely
affect the rights of others including that of being not disturbed in their
activities.

3. Maluana Mufti Sayid vs State of WB AIR 1999 Cal 15

Facts: The petitioners named Moulana Mufti Sayed Md. Noorur Rehman
Barkati, Imam and Khatib, Tipu Sultan Shahi Masjid, Dharmatala and
Chairman Gharib Nawaz Educational and Charitable Society, Calcutta
and eight others filed a writ petition before Calcutta High Court in 1997.
They prayed for a proclamation that Rule 3 of the Environmental
(Protection) Rules, 1986 in regard to Schedule III should not apply at the
time of call of Azan (an obligatory prayer called by the head of the
Mosque five a day) and for further proclamation that Schedule III of the
said rule is ultra vires Articles 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

Issues:

 Whether the right to use microphones for the purpose of Azan is

an integral and essential part of Muslim Religion and whether
that right is an absolute right and should be free from any
restriction?
 Whether the right to practice or propagate religion includes the
right to use loudspeakers and microphones for the purpose of
chanting religious tenets or religious texts and/or the
indiscriminate use of the same during the religious performance
in the society?
Held: Use of microphone is not an integral part of Azan. Microphones
have been invented later and are found to be one of the major sources of
sound pollution and affect the fundamental right of citizens under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, making citizens captive listeners, suspending
all their fundamental and legal rights. None can claim an absolute right
to suspend other rights, or it can disturb other basic human rights and
fundamental rights to sleep and leisure.

Religious freedom is guaranteed under the provisions of Article 25 of the

Indian Constitution. This article itself is subject to public order, morality
and health and other provisions of part III including Article 19(1)(a) of
the constitution of India. Furthering the definitions of day time and night
time laid down by the Central Pollution Control Board in Schedule III
framed under Rule 3 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986; day
time is reckoned as the period between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. and night time
as the period between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. Article 19(1)(a) when read with
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, states, the citizens have a right to a
decent environment, right to live peacefully, right to sleep at night, and
right to leisure, all being necessary and guaranteed under Article 21. A
restriction has been placed on the usage of microphones but not on the
giving of Azan itself. Out of the five times of Azan, microphones usage is
prohibited only once before 7a.m.
 - Dr Y T Oak filed various petitions regarding environmental issues.
His first petition was filed before the Bombay High Court.
- Justice Sujata Manohar who appointed an expert committee to look
onto noise pollution in Maharashtra and recommend effective
solutions for the same. After the report, she used an order against
the State for removal of noise pollution in the state. However, the
Maha government were not complying with this order sufficiently.
Mr. oak again approached the HC regarding non-adherence of the
government and directing the state to look into the use of
loudspeakers. Mr. oak highlighted the use of loudspeaker beyond
the permissible limit at various occasions in the state.
- The Bombay Police Act give powers to permit excessive levels of
noise. Mr Oak thus seeked appropriate directives. The Bom HC
appreciated the report submitted in 1984 (above) which talked
about health issues faced by the people due to noise pollution.

4. State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 82

Talked about reasonable restriction in the context of laws of religious

freedom.

5. Robin Mukherjee vs State of West Bengal, AIR 1985 Cal 222

Use of electronic and/or air horn instead of bulb horn. It creates noise
pollution and it has adverse effect on public health. Indiscriminate use of
such horn is amounting to noise pollution in the city. Sudden blowing of
such horn by Transport vehicles are producing rude shock in the human
system and is acknowledged to have serious effect on various aspects of
human life including blood pressure, mental and nerve system. Referring
to studies of noise pollution, the Supreme Court concluded that the noise
pollution arising from the use of loud horns, in violation of the above
mentioned Rule, is injurious to health and was among the different
causes of environmental pollution. Court directed the State Authorities to
issue notifications immediately regarding the restrictions contained in
the Rule and direct the removal of electric or air horns which create a
loud or shrill sound, and to ensure that no fitness certificate is granted to
vehicles in the case of non-compliance with the Rule. In fact, such
measures must adhere to the relevant Motor Vehicles Act and Rules .

6. Birangana Religious Society vs State, 1996 (100) CWN 617

While offering poojas or religious activities, speakers must be used in a
reasonable manner, in the restricted time (9.00 PM).

7. Farhad Wadia vs Union of India 2009 (2) SCC 442

Refusal of Maharashtra Government to give permission to conduct a

musical concert in an open-air theatre.

Case Study (Not related to environmental law per se): The Ram Leela
Maidan incident with Baba Ramdev. The police, to control the situation,
used oppressive and brutal methods such as water guns and smoke guns
and was highly criticised. The Court condemned the use of s. 144 by the
Police. But the court emphasised on right to sleep and rest and the right
to peaceful protest, with reasonable restrictions.

Hazardous Waste Management Regulations and Rules, 2016

- Minor amendments in 2018 and 2019.

- There are 18 categories of hazardous waste on which these
regulations are applicable. They even describe the method of
disposal of such waste.
- The government has looked into various scientific methods and
tools.
- The enforcement agencies – Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, CPCB, SPCB and State Pollution Control
Committee
- WHO has classified hazardous waste into two:
o Infectious: Construction, solid waste that if there is no
segregation in could lead to infectious diseases
o Non-infectious waste
- CPCB has highlighted in 2021 that there are 7 prominent states
which are frontrunners (Gujarat being #1, followed by
Maharashtra, TN, AP, WB, Chhattisgarh) who accumulate
hazardous waste (bio-medical waste and e-waste). These are highly
infectious if not dispose in a common treatment facility.
- There are 29 landfills where such hazardous waste is discharged in
about 16 states. The incineration facilities are 14 in number to
dispose this waste in 7 states.

Three reasons for accumulation of Hazardous waste:

1. Use of Hazardous Waste Substances
2. Use of Inappropriate Technologies
3. End of pipe Treatment of Effluent / Emissions

In can be solids liquids and gases

Some categories:
1. Toxic: Poisonous and may cause injury or death if swallowed,
inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. Examples include:
insecticides, paints, heavy metals.
2. Reactive or explosive: A waste exhibits the characteristics of
reactivity if a representave sample of the waste it has any of the
following properes, namely:-
(i) It is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change
without detonation;
(ii) It reacts violently with water or forms potentially explosive
mixtures with water;
(iii) when mixed with water, it generates toxic gases, vapours or
fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human
health or the environment;
(iv) It is a cyanide or sulphide bearing waste which, when exposed
to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases,
vapours or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to
human health or the environmental;
(v) It is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected
to a strong heating source or if heated under confinement;
(vi) It is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or
reaction at standard temperature and pressure;
(vii) It is a forbidden explosive.
3. Reactive: Reactive wastes are unstable under normal conditions.
They can cause explosions or release toxic fumes, gases, or vapors
when heated, compressed, or mixed with water. Examples include:
phosphorous, sodium metal.
4. Substances or Wastes liable to spontaneous combustion -
Substances or Wastes which are liable to spontaneous heating
under normal conditions encountered in transport, or to heating up
on contact with air, and being then liable to catch fire.
5. Substances or Wastes which, in contact with water emit
flammable gases- Substances or Wastes which, by interaction
with water, are liable to become spontaneously flammable or to
give off flammable gases in dangerous quantities.
6. Oxidizing - Substances or Wastes which, while in themselves not
necessarily combustible, may, generally by yielding oxygen cause,
or contribute to, the combustion of other materials.
7. Organic Peroxides - Organic substances or Wastes which contain
the bivalent O−O structure, which may undergo exothermic self-
accelerating decomposition.
8. Poisons (acute) - Substances or Wastes liable either to cause
death or serious injury or to harm human health if swallowed or
inhaled or by skin contact.
 9. Infectious substances - Substances or Wastes containing viable
micro-organisms or their toxins which are known or suspected to
cause disease in animals or humans.
10. Liberation of toxic gases in contact with air or water -
Substances or Wastes which, by interaction with air or water, are
liable to give off toxic gases in dangerous quantities.
11. Eco-toxic- Substances or Wastes which if released, present
or may present immediate or delayed adverse impacts to the
environment by means of bioaccumulation or toxic effects upon
bioc systems or both.
Note: Products can show more than one characteristic, for example
wastes from dyes & dye intermediate, distillation residues may be toxic,
flammable and corrosive. In such cases, one need to put symbol for the
most predominant constituent in the waste.
See: Schedule 1, 2 and 3
Rule 3
Identifies 40 definitions (clause 40 is incorporated by 2019 amendment
which provides for the definition for waste collector)
Prohibition on import of solid plastic waste: In case of any defective
electronic equipment and assemblies can be imported back within a span
of one year
Rule 4
- Responsibility of the occupier for the management of hazardous
waste
- Occupier, actual user, operator of facility centre are defined
Rule 5: Responsibility of State Government to manage the
Hazardous Waste
Department of Industry: Will look into sites / locations where appropriate
treatment plant can be appointed. This department will consult with
SPCB.
Department of labour: identification of skilled labour who has expertise
in terms of identification, segregation for disposal of hazardous waste.
Providing training as well to be applied to disposal.
Integrated Strategic Plant will be established by the State Government in
consonance with all these departments and the SPCB for the effective
disposal of waste.
Rule 6
Occupier will seek permission from SPCB in Form 1 for disposal of waste.
Under Form 1, he will move an application which will be scrutinised by
the SPCB and within 60 days, they will take cognisance of the application
and give a reply. SPCB will provide the authorisation/rejection within 120
days max.
While moving application under Form 1, you have to provide the CTE and
CTO certifications. If your industries falls within white industries and
green industries, Rule (6) sub – clause (1A) provides that those classified
industries are exempted from s. 25 and s. 21 of Water Act and Air Act
(CTE or CTO) respectively from the SPCB. No authorisation is required
for these industries. These industries can never be orange or red
industries.
If there is renewal of authorization which was initially grated by SPCB,
the details of adherence of all the prescribed standards are to be
provided which can help in renewing the authorization.
By virtue of 2019 amendment, the silk waste producing industry are also
exempted from procuring permission and authorisation.
Under Rule 6, if the registration for recycling of waste has already been
approved by the SPCB, there is no need to seek permission again.
Permission here is valid for 5 years. The letter of authorisation shall be
annexed with the inspection report.
Rule 7: Power to cancel authorisation
Every occupier must comply with the directions, and non adherence can
atttacr any measure that the authority seems fit, including termination.
Refer to s. 15 of the EPA
Rule 8: Storage of hazardous waste
The occupier will not store the hazardous waste beyond 90 days
It cannot exceed 10 tonnes per annum.
Rule 9: Utilisation of hazardous waste

Anything which is related to this category, the central ministry usually

provides SOPs and guidelines. The CPCB adheres and the SPCB also
complies with it. In terms of utilisation, it is notified through the SOPs.

If the SOP is not available. CPCB will try to make guidelines for each
identified waste. This is a called a trial run. On a trial run basis, an
effective method is identified for these wastes.

Hritvik – 28
29/08

Forest Conservation Act

- The 1988 Policy triggered the amended the Forest Conservation

Act to have a wider goal of preservation.

In the forest conservation Act, it was provided that State cannot permit
the use of forest of the following purposes:

 De-reservation of the reserve forest cover

 Use of forest land for non – forest purposes (construction, mining,
industrialisation, oil extraction)

S. 2 clarifies that this can be done only after prior consent of the Central
Government
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors v. State of U. P. &
Ors

- Directive to State government to look into Section 2 of FCA.

- This decision related to earlier decisions by the Supreme Court in
the same matter. The Supreme Court had received a writ petition
from Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra regarding the
unauthorised and illegal operation of lime-stone quarries in the
Mussoorie Hill range, India. It was argued that the quarries caused
a hazard to healthy environment and affected the perennial water
springs.
- During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the Court had appointed
a Committee for the purpose of inspecting the lime stone quarries
mentioned in the Writ Petitions. The Govern- ment of India had also
appointed a working Group on the mining of lime stone quarries in
Dehradun-Mussoorie area.
On 12th March 1985 the Court passed a de- tailed order giving
various directions and observing that the reasons for the order
would be set out in the judgment to follow later. In this decision,
however, the court was of the view that it was not necessary to give
any further reasons than those which had already been given in the
order made by the Court on 12th March, 1985 because the broad
reasons had been adequately set out in that order.
The court emphasized that industrial development was necessary
for economic growth of the country. If, however, industrial growth
was sought to be achieved by haphazard and reckless working of
the mines resulting in loss of life, loss of property, loss of basic
amenities like supply of water and creation of ecological imbalance,
there may ultimately be no real eco- nomic growth and no real
prosperity. It was necessary to strike a proper balance. Appropriate
authorities at the time of granting leases should take all these facts
into consideration and also provide for adequate safeguards.

Tarun Bharat Sangh vs Union of India, 1993 (3) SCC 115

Same contention: Forest activities were being conducted without the

consent of the Central government. There was illegal mining activity in
an area declared as Tiger Reserve. The petitioner, a voluntary
organization interested in protecting the environment, approached the
court complaining of the widespread illegal mining activity going on in
the area declared as a Tiger Reserve in the State of Rajasthan. It prayed
that in the interest of ecology, environment and rule of law, the activity
should stop. It was alleged that there were notifications prohibiting all
mining activity, and yet the State Government had granted hundreds of
licences for mining marble, dolomite and other materials and that such
section was contrary to law. The Court appointed a committee to ensure
due observance of the various Acts and Notifications that had been
issued in respect of the protected area. The committee stated that there
were 215 mines completely falling within the areas declared as protected
forest while 47 mines fell partly inside and partly outside the areas
declared as protected forest. The court emphasized that this was not a
case where the court was called upon to shut down an activity being
carried on lawfully, in the name of higher considerations of ecology and
environment. It was a simple case to ensure observance of enacted laws
made by the State to protect the environment and ecology of the area. In
such a case, there was no need to be oppressed by considerations of
balancing the interest of economy and ecology. That had already been
done by the Legislature and Parliament. It observed that no mining lease
could have been granted or renewed within the forest without clearance
from the Central Government in accordance with the forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules made there-under. Admittedly, no
such prior approval or clearance of central Government was obtained. It
concluded that the mining activity was illegal and had to stop. Maybe this
would have the effect of bringing to halt the activity involving a good
amount of capital and a large number of workers. But in view of the
inherent illegality attaching to them, there was no option but to close
them. Besides that, it was directed that the mining activity in the mines
situated outside the protected forest areas but within the tiger reserve
could continue for a period of four months. If no permission to continue
mining was obtained from the Central Government within the said period
of four months, the mining activity in the entire area declared as tiger
reserve had to stop.

Godavarmam vs Union of India

In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ petition with the

Supreme Court of India to protect the Nilgiris forest land from
deforestation by illegal timber operations. The Court issued detailed
directions for the sustainable use of forests and created its own
monitoring and implementation system through regional and state level
communities, regulating the felling, use and movement of timber across
the country in the hope of preserving the nation's forest. The Court
examined in detail all the aspect of the National Forest Policy, the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980, which was enacted with a view to check further
deforestation. It emphasised that the word 'forest' must be understood
according to its dictionary meaning of the term irrespective of the nature
of ownership and classification thereof. According to this new broader
definition, any forest thus defined, regardless of ownership, would be
subject to §2 of the FCA. Section 2 of the Act specifies that no state
government or other authority may allow the use of any forest land for
any non-forestry purpose without prior approval from the central
government. Under the new interpretation of forest land under §2 of the
FCA, states could no longer de-reserve protected forests for commercial
or industrial (non-forestry) use without permission. Among the directions
issued, the following are the principle ones: 1) All forest activities
throughout the country, without the specific approval of the Central
Government must cease forthwith. Therefore running of saw mills,
plywood mills and mining are all non forest purposes and they cannot
carry on with the Central approval; 2) The felling of all trees in all forest
is to remain suspended except in accordance with the working plan
approved by the Central Government; 3) Complete ban on the movement
of cut trees and timber from any seven north eastern states of the
country either by rail, road or water ways. The Indian railways and state
governments were directed to take all measures necessary to ensure
strict compliance of this directions. Railways were asked to shift
immediate to concert tracks than to using wooden sleepers. Defense
establishments were also asked to find alternatives to consumption of
wood based products; 4). A High power Committee was to be constituted
to oversee the implementation of the judgment and to guide the Court in
making further orders, especially in the North East. The Committee was
directed to prepare an inventory of timber and timber products lying in
the forest, transport depots and mills in the region. The HPC was
empowered to permit the use or sale of timber products if it considered
appropriate through the State Forest Corporation.; 5) Licenses given to
all wood based industries shall stand suspended; 6) An action plan shall
be prepared by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for intensive
patrolling and other necessary protective measures to be undertaken in
identified vulnerable areas an d quarterly report shall be submitted to
the Central Government for approval.

Wildlife protection Act

There is an amendment bill pending in 2021 - approval is left by RS.

Aims:

 Inclusion of maximum species for getting protection under the Act.

 Regulating trade of endangered species

Missed two classes – and none of u thought of taking notes lmao

Bail can be granted provided that the Court is satisfied that the public
prosecutor did not object to it and the specific evidence indicates that the
suspects were not involved. Bail is not a right in case of hunting, killing,
etc.

State of Bihar vs Murad Ali, 1988 (4) SCC 655

SLP was filed by government against the decision of the Patna High
Court. The Respondent was arrested for killing and hunting elephant.
Under s. 9 read with 51, the complaint was filed by the range officer.
Magistrate issued summons. The Respondent appealed in HC against the
summons order on the basis of the fact that the range officer was not the
authorised official to file the complaint under the Wildlife Protection Act.
HC favoured the Respondent on basis of s. 55 of the Act. This order was
challenged in SC.
The SC said that the authority to whom powers are delegated under s.
55, that particular authority can take a call and file the complaint. This
includes the range officer.

Pradeep Krishen vs Union of India

A petition under s. 32 was filed against the order of M.P. government by

which permission was given to the villagers living near the sanctuaries
and national parks to collect tendu leaves through contractors. If there is
a national park, entry is prohibited unless the Central Government
permits the same. In state of M.P. 11 areas have been declared as
sanctuaries and national parks covering a lot of forest cover in M.P. The
petitioner contended that a number of trees in these areas have been
destroyed due to the entry of villagers. The Supreme Court directed the
Madhya Pradesh government to take urgent steps to prohibit entry of
villager and tribals in national parks and sanctuaries.

Prohibition:

R Simon vs Unionm of India, AIR 1997 Del 301

Ivory Traders Manufacturers Assoc vs UOI AIR 1997 DEL 267

Indian Handicrafts emporium vs UOI 2003 (7) SCC 589

In all these cases, the Petitioners who were in the business of

manufacturer of coats, caps, and snake skin items like bags, shoes and
brief cases / invory / other animal traders challenged 1991 Amendment
which prohibited trade in animal articles. They said that the said Act
indirectly takes away fundamental right to carry on any trade or business
under Art. 19(1)(g). They also said that there are certain wild animals are
harmful and serve no useful purpose. Delhi High Court held that every
animal is important in maintaining ecological balance and it is the duty of
every Indian citizen to protect and improve the wildlife in the country.
Further, no fundamental right is absolute and the same can be restricted
in public interest. Wildlife protection is very much in public interest. The
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of this amendment
under Art. 19(6). The Court observed that a trade, which is dangerous to
ecology, may be regulated or totally prohibited. Balancing the social
interest and the fundamental rights, a total prohibition is reasonable.

Forest Friendly Camps Pvt Limited vs State of Rajasthan AIR 2002

Raj 214

The grounds for appeal was that the Rajasthan Government declared that
the Ranthambore National Park and sanctuaries attached thereto were
‘tiger reserves’. The State Government issues notification that vehicles
and tourist movement will be restricted there. It also introduced a roster
system under s. 27 and 28(2) of the WPA. The SC said that the
imposition of roaster system for tourist vehicles is not arbitrary.
Tourism should be based on environmentally friendly concept. Right to
entry in the sanctuary is not absolute. The authorities are well within
their right to regulate entry and impose the terms and conditions for
entry and impose terms and conditions for entry in the sanctuary.

Tarun Bharat Sangh vs UOI (Look above, its already discussed)

Salman Khan vs State of Rajasthan

https://www.barandbench.com/news/blackbuck-poaching-case-rajasthan-
high-court-allows-salman-khan-transfer-petition-despite-opposition-by-
tabu

Manas National Park case (latest) – 3 conviction orders for hunting and
poaching by Orissa HC.

- End of Saira Ma’am’s portion -

Pratikalpa ma’am

Marine Biodiversity and Marine Environment

- Ballast Water – dangers

- Ballast Water Management Rules

What is marine biodiversity?

Major risks

- Overfishing
- By catch – discarding the marine organisms that are not needed by
the fishermen
- Climate Change
- Invasive species – species who are not native to that particular
habitat
- Human acfrivities – oil spills, naval activities, artificial islands,
waste discharge
- Seabed mining
- Shipping which is known as polluting industry
- Oil tankers

Salvage Operations (see PPT)

 - Salvage is a contract for saving of a ship that is exposed to danger
or is destructed at sea.
- The Salvage convention governs the basic conditions of a salvage
operation

UNCLOS

(Everything is in the PPT) – I will write whatever is extra

Most important contribution of UNCLOS is the demarcation of sea

boundaries

-----------End of Portion-----------------

Some random case she mentioned in last class, idk where its
supposed to fit: Divya Pharmacy vs Union of India – Benefits of
genetic research must be shared by the State. The Petitioner (Baba
Ramdev) used natural resources to manufacture organic products. The
petitioners alleged that the Uttarakhand biodiversity Board did not have
any authority to ask for fair and equitable sharing. Basically, they cannot
ask for benefit sharing. The HC rejected this.