Environmenta L Principles: Unit 3
Environmenta L Principles: Unit 3
L PRINCIPLES
UNIT 3
POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
• Principle 16
National authorities should endeavor to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use
of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear
the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and
investment.
INDIAN JUDICIARY
• MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987)-Oleum Gas Leak case
Environment is a privilege provided to us to everyone residing on this earth and it is everyone’s human right to enjoy a
safe and healthy environment and it is also everybody’s duty to work for it and contribute towards its betterment. Any
person who keeps any sort of hazardous substance in its premises shall be responsible for its escape and causing
damages.
The polluter pays principle says, polluter must pay for the damage done to the human beings and environment. River
bichri was being polluted and industries were releasing affluents to this river, which had caused a lot of env. Hazards
and brown water, contamination and death and disease were reported. It was held that the polluter is not only
responsible for the cause but also is liable to pay.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)-Tanneries case
A lot of chemicals were used by the tanneries industry and untreated affluents were released to Palar river. It was a
major water source of the households agricultural as well as drinking water. Potable water was not available due to
chemical discharge and most of agricultural areas became unfavourable for cultivation. It was identified that almost
170 industries were using chemicals all were leather industries. It was held: all the 170 industries need to pay
compensation and create a fund called environment protection fund to pay compensation to the affected parties.
• S. Jaganath v U.O.I (1997) Shrimp culture case
Shrimp farming was very much prevalent in coastal zone, it is considered to be fragile
and here activities were also prohibited. There were large no. of MNCs that were
involved in shrimp farming. 8000 hectares of land were converted into shrimp farming.
This was causing ecological hazard. There was a person S.Jaganath chairman of one of
the movements to protect weaker sections. He filed this case. As a result we have coastal
zone regulation. It was then notified coastal zones to ecologically fragile.
It also talks about the categorization of coastal areas and activities prohibited therein.
Those who were involved were asked to pay for the damages and a fund called env.
Relief fund was created. Applicable to most of the coastal zones.
• M.C Mehta v U.O.I. (1997) (Taj Mahal Trapezium Case)
Efforts were taken by the court to protect the ancient monument. In an around the city of
Agra there were a lot of factories emitting pollution to air which led to discoloration of
the marbles. Because of this PIL was filed invoking fundamental duty. The Court
ordered to close the nearby industries that were casuing pollution in the air.
• M.C Mehta v Kamalnath (2002) Span Motel Case
In this case two principles were laid:
Polluter pays principle and Precautionary Principle
There was a proposal to build a Hotel in the coastal of river Deas in Himachal
Pradesh. So for the construction natural course of river was disturbed and crated
hazard. It was held that it is the fundamental duty of the state to protect the
destruction of natural course of river, the hotel owner will have to pay back. The
construction had caused a lot of disturbances and the Court invoked public trust
doctrine.
held, the state is responsible for all kinds of hazardous happening and Court
ordered to restore the ecological hazard.
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AND
PPP
• Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 states “The
Tribunal, while passing any order or decision or award, shall
apply the principles of sustainable development, the
precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.”
CASE LAWS
(d) Agriculture, grazing, forestry and fisheries practices shall be adapted to the natural characteristics and
constraints of given areas;
(e) Areas degraded by human activities shall be rehabilitated for purposes in accord with their natural
potential and compatible with the well-being of affected populations.
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.”
INDIAN JUDICIARY AND
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
• Essence of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
• By the law of nature these things are common to all mankind, the air, running
water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.” The Public Trust
Doctrine, as this notion came to be known, suggests that certain resources—
usually water, but now much more—are common, shared property of all
citizens, stewarded in perpetuity by the State.
• Under the English Common law, however, the Sovereign could own these
resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant
these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public
interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses
were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public.
MONO LAKE CASE