Env. Notes (repaired).docx

Environmental Protection during Ancient and Medieval Periods India is a unique sub-continent with vast variations in geographic area, topography and climate. It has a great diversity of ecosystems from the cold and high Himalayan ranges to the seacoasts, from the wet northeastern green rainforests to the dry northwestern arid deserts. Natural and biological resources in the country being abundant, the kind of exploitation they had to undergo through the ages has also been awful, leading to the large-scale degradation of the environment in multifarious ways. Since time immemorial, the efforts of the people to conserve and utilize the natural resources in a sustainable manner have been quite exemplary. Many customary and community norms were evolved by the society to protect the environment. With changing times and scenario, these undocumented traditional doctrines took a back seat, paving the way to codified laws in India. Environmental protection is not a new concept to Indians. It has been a 5000year-old history and tradition for them. In early days, many religious and customary norms governed environmental conservation. It was the dharma of each individual in the society to protect nature. The people worshipped the objects of nature. The trees, water, land and animals gained important position in the ancient time. Natural resources management was given prime importance in ancient India. Conservation of water bodies and protection of forests and wildlife were considered to be important aspects of governance by the rulers and local people. Punishments were prescribed for causing injury to plants. According to evidences in Vedas and Kautilya’s Arthasasthra , different dynasties accorded top priority to environmental protection and sustainable use of its components. All of the tree parts were considered important and sacred and Kautilya fixed punishments based on the destruction of the specific part of the tree. Some of the important trees were even elevated to the position of God. Manu imposed a condition on mankind to protect forests. The rivers also enjoyed a high stature in the society. The Ashoka Edicts, especially the 5th Pillar Edict, states that how animals and birds were protected in those days. In medieval period, though there have been instances of establishment of nature parks, gardens, and fruit orchards by the Mughal

rulers around their palaces and along banks of rivers, they did not have any definite policy to protect the forests or wildlife. Rather they were merely considered to be a good source of revenue and pleasure. The notable feature of the Mughal regime was the growth of interest in natural history. Both Babar’s account of Indian flora and fauna and Jahangir’s investigations in natural history are well known while Salim Ali, the celebrated ornithologist, drew attention to their contributions as naturalists long ago. Adbul Qadir Badauni lists among sins and offences, the three sins, of cutting down a shady tree, making a profession of killing animals, and selling away human beings, as heinous. Akbar’s efforts in promoting afforestation in common property resources, management of water bodies, and his disapproval of killing animals are legendary.

Constitutional Mandate

The Constitution contained provisions such as Articles 39 (b), 47, 48 and 49 which provided an indirect and tangential reference to environment, they did not prescribe a comprehensive national agenda to protect and conserve the environment in its totality. The Constitution of India was amended in 1976 to incorporate two important provisions on environment in the Constitution. Article 48-A was inserted into the Part IV of the Constitution making environmental protection a part of Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 48-A directs the State "to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife". Article 51-A(g) declared that it shall be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures". Article 48-A mandated the State to make new laws and policies for the protection of environment. Taking cue from the fundamental duty under Article 51-A(g) and ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21, many Public Interest Litigations (PIL) were filed by the Indian citizenry to assert their environmental rights. The Forty Second Amendment inserted a new entry "Population Control and Family planning" into the Concurrent List, while "Forests" and "Protection of Wild Animals and Birds" were moved to the Concurrent List from the State List enabling the Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact suitable laws. Part IX and IX-A were added into the Constitution by 73rd and 74th Amendments in 1992 to give constitutional sanction to democracy at the grass root level through panchayats and municipalities. The local bodies are assigned with the powers to perform

various environmental matters as enumerated in Eleventh and Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution. Pollution Related Laws

The earlier legislative efforts were piecemeal and inadequate until the 1970s when the central government began to enact comprehensive environmental laws. As far as environmental laws are concerned, they can be classified into two categories: laws dealing with pollution and laws pertaining to the conservation of nature such as forests and wildlife. Among the laws dealing with pollution, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1977, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995, and the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997, require special mention. These are special enactments to deal with the problems posed by industrial activities. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Water Act of 1974 represented one of India’s first attempts to deal comprehensively with an environmental issue. As water is a State subject under the Constitution, it was enacted under Article 252 (Clause 1) that empowers the Parliament to make laws on any entry found in the State List if two or more State Legislatures consent to a Central Law. The Act provides for the prevention and control of water pollution and maintenance and restoration of wholesomeness of water. It establishes a Central Pollution Control Board at the national level and State Pollution Control Boards in every State in order to administer and implement the Act. Before the establishment of an industry which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluents, the project proponent should get prior consent of the State Pollution Control Board and comply with the conditions laid down by the Board. Any violation of the provisions of the Act will attract penal provisions. The State Pollution Control Board and citizens can launch prosecution against the polluting industry.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977

The purpose of the Water Cess Act is to levy and collect cess on water consumed by persons carrying on certain industries and by local authorities with a view to augment resources of Central and State Boards constituted under Water Act 1974. According to the Act, the industries and local authorities are subject to the cess if they use water for (a) industrial cooling, spraying in mine pits, or boiler feed, (b) domestic purposes, (c) processing which results in water pollution by biodegradable water pollutants, or (d) processing which results in water pollution by pollutants which are not easily biodegradable or are toxic. A rebate of 25% is available for the person or local authority for installing plants for the treatment of sewage or trade effluents [56] . The rebate will not be available for persons who consume water in excess of the maximum prescribed quantity or fail to comply with the Water Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

The Air Act was enacted for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution. The Central and State Pollution Control Boards were envisaged by the Act, and for the purpose of this Act, the Boards constituted under the Water Act, 1974 shall be deemed to be the Boards for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution. The State Governments are empowered to declare air pollution control areas. Consent of the State Pollution Control Board is required to establish or operate any industry in an air pollution controlled area [60] . The State Pollution Control Boards can launch prosecutions against the industries violating the conditions laid down in the consent orders or other provisions of the Act. An Amendment made to the Act in 1987 empowered the citizens to file cases against polluting industries after giving sixty days’ notice to the State Pollution Control Board.

Rio de Janeiro conference The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, the Rio Summit, the Rio Conference, and the Earth Summit (Portuguese: ECO92), was a major United Nations conference held in Rio de Janeirofrom 3 to 14 June 1992. More than 100 heads of states met in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil...Earth Summit was created as a response for Member States to cooperate together internationally on development issues after the Cold War. Due to conflict relating to sustainability being too big for individual member states to handle, Earth Summit was held as a platform for other Member States to collaborate. Since the creation, many others in the field of sustainability show a similar development to the issues discussed in these

conferences, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development was also held in Rio. An important achievement of the summit was an agreement on the Climate Change Convention which in turn led to the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Another agreement was to "not to carry out any activities on the lands of indigenous peoples that would cause environmental degradation or that would be culturally inappropriate". The Convention on Biological Diversity was opened for signature at the Earth Summit, and made a start towards redefinition of measures that did not inherently encourage destruction of natural ecoregions and so-called uneconomic growth. Critics point out that many of the agreements made in Rio have not been realized regarding such fundamental issues as fighting poverty and cleaning up the environment. Green Cross International was founded to build upon the work of the Summit. The first edition of Water Quality Assessments, published by WHO/Chapman & Hall, was launched at the Rio Global Forum.

Emergence of PIL in India “Access to justice through class actions, public interest litigation and representative proceedings is the present Constitutional jurisprudence”.( Akhil Bhartiya Soshil Karmachari Sangh (Railway) Vs Union of India A.I.R. 1981 S.). The method was to redress the public grievances and relax the governing rules of locus standi. The Supreme Court has lowered the standing barriers by widening the concept of the “Person Aggrieved”. The traditional approach of PIL was restricted only to a person whose own right was in jeopardy was entitled to seek the remedy.

Article 32 Constitution

and

226

of

Indian

The powers of the Supreme Court to issue directions under Article 32 and that of High Court to issue directions under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution have attained great significance in environment legislation. Courts have made use of these powers to remedy past maladies and to check immediate and future assaults on the environment.

Article 226 of Indian Constitution An important aspect of Indian Constitution is the jurisdiction it confers upon High Court to issue writs. The writs have been among the great safeguards provided by the British judicial system for upholding the rights and liberties of people. It was an act of wisdom and foresight on the part of the constitution makers to introduce writ system in India and thus constitute the High Court into the category of guardian and protector of people’s legal right. Under Article 226, a High Court is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the natures of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo- Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of many rights conferred by Part III of Indian Constitution. The Jurisdiction conferred upon on a High Court is to protect not only the Fundamental Rights but even any other legal right as is clear from the words “Any other Purpose”.

Public Interest Litigation- A Dynamic Concept The traditional rule of Locus Standi that a petition under Article 32 can be filed by a person whose fundamental Rights is infringed has now been considerably relaxed by the Supreme Court in its ruling. The court permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Action Litigation at the instance of “Public Spirited Citizens” for the enforcement of constitutional and the legal rights of any person or group

of

persons

who

because

of

the

poverty

or

socially,

economically or due to disadvantaged position are unable to approach the court for any kind of relief. “Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the grab of public interest litigation. Public interest litigation

contemplates

legal

proceedings

for

vindication

or

enforcement

of

fundamental

rights

of

a

group

of

person

or

community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 must approach this court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is [the] duty of this court to discourage such petition and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court for personal matters under the grab of the public interest litigation”. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has to come to stay in India. Contrary to the past practices today a person acting a bonafide and having sufficient interest can move to the court for redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social and collective rights and interest and vindicating Public interest. The concept of class action is embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where numerous people have common interests; one or more of such person can file a suit. An example of class action was Bhopal Disaster Litigation. The interest of the community can also be agitated under the law of public nuisance incorporated under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. An individual or any group or an executive magistrate, suo moto can move the courts. This provision proved to be very important and potent factor and weapon for regulatory measures as well as affirmative action by the government and local bodies for “the protection of the environment.” The ability to invoke Jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is a remarkable step forward in providing protection of the environment. Courts have widened the aspect and dimensions of the substantive “Right to health and clean and unpolluted environment”. In most of the cases, this was made possible only due to because of PIL. Thus in order to reap the benefits of substantive environment rights, court has opened the path of “Processual Justice” without enslaving themselves to the procedural compulsions. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India a

social action group of people challenged the legality of granting a mining license in the protected area of forest cover. Upholding the contention the Supreme Court observed that“This litigation should not be treated as the usual adversarial litigation. Petitioners are acting in aid of a purpose high on the national agenda. Petitioners concern for the environment, ecology and the wildlife should be shared by the government. ” This observation of the Supreme Court is important as it emphasises the rationale of PIL in environmental issues. It is the duty of the state to protect the environment- a duty imposed by the Directive Principle of State Policies and Fundamental Duties, incorporated by Forty second Amendment Act of the Constitution. Any person who raise environmental issues, whether individual, group or any institution is equally concerned with the problem. Such Litigation can never be considered as one of the adversarial confrontation with the State. It is only because of the concept of PIL that the Supreme Court is able to give the wider interpretation to the environmental laws in India. Some of these notable interpretations are as follows1. Every person enjoys the Right to wholesome environment which is facet of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. 2. Enforcement agencies are under the obligation to strictly enforce environmental laws. 3. Government agencies may not plead non availability of funds, inadequacy of Staff or other insufficiencies to justify the non performance of their obligation under environmental laws. 4. The Polluter Pays principle which is a part of basic environmental law of the land requires that the polluter bear the remedial clean up costs as well as the amount payable to compensate the victims of Pollution. 5. The precautionary principle requires government authorities to participate and anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment pollution. This principle also imposes onus of proof on the developer and industrialists to show that his or her action is environmental benign.

In this manner, our judiciary has used the tool of PIL quite effectively for the cause of environmental protection. But the judiciary has shown wisdom in denying false petitions seeking to advance private interests through PIL as evident from the decision of the Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (6). Hence, PIL has proved to be a great weapon in the hands of higher courts for protection of environment & our judiciary has certainly utilized this weapon of PIL in best possible manner.

Precautionary Principle The Precautionary Principle has been adopted in many environmental instruments all over the world. The principle states that if there is a risk of severe damage to the environment absence of any scientific or conclusive proof is not to be given as a reason for the inaction. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof on the shoulders of the person who is arguing that the activity he is carrying out is not harmful. The principle follows the approach of being safe than being sorry. This principle is in contrast to the wait-and-watch approach which is generally followed in environmental issues. The Precautionary Principle encourages “action taking” to antedate and prevent damage to the environment. The Precautionary Principle is one of the most popular legal approaches in the field of environmental law today.

Definition of Precautionary Principle There are two definitions of Precautionary Principle which are widely accepted1. The first definition is given in the Rio Declaration of 1992. It states that in order to protect the environment every state should apply the principle to the best of their abilities. When there are chances of irreversible and serious damage, lack of full scientific should not be the reason for the postponement of preventive measure. 2. The second definition is based on the Wingspread Statement on Precautionary Principle, which was given 1998. This definition states that when there is a threat to the environment and human health, precautionary measures should be taken even when full scientific data is not available. The principle should examine the alternative options available (even the option of taking no action). There is a significant difference between the two definitions. The first definition talks about “irreversible and serious damage, but the second definition talks

about “harm” to the environment and human health in general. Thus, the scope of the second definition is wider.

Precautionary Principle and Indian Law The Indian Judiciary actively supports the Precautionary Principle. In the judicial pronouncement of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v UOI, the Court opined that sustainable development t is the need of the hour. The court emphasized on the fact that there should be a balance between economic growth and protection of the environment. The Court rejected the traditional concept that ecology and development are opposed to each other. The Court also reviewed the development of the concept of sustainable development in the international sphere. The Court referred to the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, Caring for Earth, 1991, the Earth Summit, and the Rio Declaration of 1992 and opined that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are indispensable features of Sustainable Development. In the case of M C Mehta v Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court reiterated the decision given in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case stating that the Precautionary Principle is a part of the environment law in India. The Precautionary Principle was very comprehensively reviewed by the Apex Court in the case of AP Control Pollution Board vs. Prof M V Nayadu. The Court stated that it is better to go wrong in taking caution and prevent environmental harm rather than waiting for the issue to materialize into an irreversible problem. The Court opined that the Precautionary Principle was evolved because of lack of scientific certainty only, and the principle involves anticipating the harm the environment may suffer and act on the basis of that. In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v UOI, the Apex Court very clearly laid down the proposition of law, and specifically of Precautionary Principle. The Court stated that when an issue pertains to environmental damage, the onus of proof is on the person who is contending that the activities carried on by him are not harmful to the environment. The party who is giving such contention also has to satisfy the Court of the same, that there will be no environmental degradation due to his activities.

Judiciary plays an immense role in linking the law with the concept of sustainable development. So, it is vital that the judiciary also supports this kind of approaches. The support of the judiciary is required so that protection of environment gets a legal sanctity. As an offshoot of legal recognition, the Precautionary Principle was also adopted by the National Environmental Policy as a guiding principle. However, there is still a long way to go for the Precautionary Principle to gain its rightful place in the field of environmental law. And till it does not get its rightful place, it will be very difficult to implement it.

PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE The doctrine of public trust has evolved over the years to emerge as one of the core principles for the judiciary to substantiate the legitimacy of governmental action that interferes with the use by the general public of natural resources. The incorporation of this doctrine into our legal system has resulted in the imposition of a much required check upon governmental authorities who seek to divest State control over such natural resources in favour of private parties. The public trust doctrine “is based on the notion that the public holds inviolable rights in certain lands and resources, andthat regardless of title ownership”, and that “the state retains certain rights in such lands and resources in trust for the public. Public trust doctrine serves two purposes: it mandates affirmative state action for effective management of resources and empowers citizens to question ineffective management of natural resources . At its widest, it could be used by the courts as a tool to protect the environment from many kinds of degradation. In some countries, the doctrine has formed the basis of environmental policy legislation, allowing private rights of action by citizens for violations by the state (directly or indirectly) of the public trust. The Rule of Law runs close to the rule of life and the Indian Constitution, in its humanist vision, has made environmental-ecological preservation a fundamental value. The higher jurisprudence of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life) embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gift without which life ceases to be viable and human rights become a simulacrum. In other words, this right to life under article 21 has been extended to include the right to a healthy environment and the right to livelihood. The third aspect of the right to life is the application of public trust doctrine to protect and preserve the public land. When the Indian courts have applied the public trust doctrine, they have

considered it not only as an international law concept, but one, which is well established in their national legal system. The doctrine is first mentioned in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath and others where the Indian Supreme Court applied public trust with regard to the protection and preservation of natural resources. In this case, the State Government granted lease of riparian forestland to a private company for commercial purpose. The purpose of the lease was to build a motel at the bank of the River Beas. A report published in a national newspaper alleged that the motel management interfered with the natural flow of the river in order to divert its course and to save the motel from future floods. The Supreme Court initiated suo motu action based on the newspaper item because the facts disclosed, if true, would be a serious act of environmental degradation. The Supreme court in M.C. Mehta started that the Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and forests have such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership . The court observed that: Our Indian legal system, which is based on English common law, includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation. Thus, the Public Trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The court also ruled that there is no any justifiable reason to rule out the application of the public trust doctrine in all ecosystems in India. In this case, the Supreme Court was faced with the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, lakes and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open land.... It stated that the public bodies should apply public trust doctrine when there is no legislation to protect the natural resources.

It is interesting to note that in the Kamal Nath case the Supreme Court held that even if there is a separate and a specific law to deal with the issue before the Court, it may still apply public trust doctrine. If there is no suitable legislation to preserve the natural resources, the public authorities should take advantage of this doctrine in addition to the fact that there was a branch of municipal law. Conclusion From the above discussions on the doctrine and various case laws, it is evident that the state is not the owner of the natural resources in the country but a trustee who holds fiduciary relationship with the people. By accepting this task the government is expected to be loyal to the interests of its citizens and to discharge its duty with the interest of the citizens at heart and involve them in decision-making process concerning the management of natural resources in the country. The Public Trust Doctrine may provide the means for increasing the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment laws. Thus, under this doctrine, the state has a duty as a trustee under art. 48A to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. POLLUTA PAYS PRINCIPLE The ‘polluter pays’ principle is an environmental policy principle which requires that the costs of pollution be borne by those who cause it. The ‘polluter pays’ principle is normally implemented through two different policy approaches: command-and-control and market-based. Command-and-control approaches include performance and technology standards, such as environmental regulations in the production of a given polluting technology. Market-based instruments include pollution or ecotaxes, tradable pollution permits and product labelling. Most of the time, the ‘polluter pays’ principle takes the form of a tax collected by government and levied per unit of pollution emitted into the air or water. As a policy instrument for the control of pollution, a tax on emissions will theoretically reduce pollution, because firms or individuals will reduce emissions in order to avoid paying the tax. Under a range of market conditions, standard economists assume that pollution tax will generally be more cost-effective at reducing pollution than regulations: the total abatement cost of achieving a specified level of pollution reduction will generally be lower under a pollution tax than for a command-and-control approach that achieves the same reduction in pollution. The ‘polluter pays’ principle has received support from most countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and from the European Community (EC). In international environmental law, it is mentioned in

Principle 16 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Despite the fact that the ‘polluter pays’ principle was publicised by early conservationists as a means to reduce ecological pollution or in general ecological damages, many observers still consider it a ‘vague concept’. However, the Exxon Valdez case would be an example of its application. In 1989, the oil tanker ran aground and over 300,000 barrels of crude oil poured into Alaskan waters. Exxon was in principle required to pay USD 125 million in fines to the US Federal Government and the state of Alaska, as well as USD 900 million for a fund to be doled out by government officials for environmental projects, among other things. In addition, Exxon was put under tremendous political pressure to restore the shoreline. It thus engaged in an extensive and costly clean-up operation, with controversial results. Most of the sophisticated theoretical developments of the ‘polluter pays’ principle that have been carried out in the neoclassical economics literature have relied on strong assumptions about the workings of the economy including competitive markets, profit-maximising firms, rational consumers, and, in mathematical terms, ‘well-behaved’ preferences and technologies for production. Thus, it should be remembered that relaxing one of these assumptions can alter the conclusions reached and thus that results must always be evaluated and interpreted with great care. POLLUTA PAYS PRINCIPLE The Polluter Pays Principle was first introduced in 1972 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guiding Principles concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental policies where under the polluter was held responsible for the environmental damage and pollution. Subsequently, the Rio Declaration laid down the guidelines for sustainable development meaning thereby a strategy to cater the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of the future generation. In furtherance of the aim of sustainable development Rio Declaration Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration enshrined the Polluter Pays principle stating that the polluter should bear the cost of pollution.

The Concept The Polluter Pays Principle imposes liability on a person who pollutes the environment to compensate for the damage caused and return the environment to its original state regardless of the intent.

View of the Indian Judiciary The Indian Judiciary has incorporated the Polluter Pays Principle as being a part of the Environmental Law regime is evident from the judgments passed.









Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India 1996(3) SCC 212 The Court held that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India 1996(5) SCC 647 The Court interpreted the meaning of the Polluter Pays Principle as the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of the pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of 'Sustainable Development' and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology." The Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India) AIR 1987 SC 1086 The Court laid down that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of persons working in the factory and to those residing in the surrounding areas, owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to any one on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and irrespective of all reasonable care taken on his account. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, greater must be the amount of the compensation payable for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise. M. C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors (1997)1SCC388 The Court held that pollution is a civil wrong and is a tort committed against the community as a whole. Thus, any person guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. Under the Polluter Pays Principle, it is not the role of Government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer.

STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, byname Stockholm Conference, the first United Nations (UN) conference that focused on international environmental issues. The conference, held in Stockholm, Sweden, from June 5 to 16, 1972, reflected a growing interest in conservation issues worldwide and laid the foundation for global environmental governance. The final declaration of the Stockholm Conference was an environmental manifesto that was a forceful statement of the finite nature of Earth’s resources and the necessity for humanity to safeguard them. The Stockholm Conference also led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in December 1972 to

coordinate global efforts to promote sustainability and safeguard the natural environment. The roots of the Stockholm Conference lie in a 1968 proposal from Sweden that the UN hold an international conference to examine environmental problems and identify those that required international cooperation to solve. The 1972 conference was attended by delegations from 114 governments. Documents created during the conference influenced international environmental law; one notable example was the final declaration, which elucidated 26 principles concerning the environment. The conference also produced the “Framework for Environmental Action,” an action plan containing 109 specific recommendations related to human settlements, natural-resource management, pollution, educational and social aspects of the environment, development, and international organizations. The final declaration was a statement of human rights as well as an acknowledgment of the need for environmental protection. The first principle began “Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.”