Environmental Law Principles

1. Precautionary Principle

Concept: The ‘Precautionary Principle’ insures that a substance or activity posing a threat to the environment is prevented from adversely affecting it, even if there is no conclusive scientific proof linking that particular substance or activity to the environmental damage.
Key Case Law:

A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu:

The Supreme Court held that the government must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Under this principle, the burden of proof lies with the polluter/industrialist/developer to show that their actions are environmentally friendly.
- The court emphasized that when there is an identifiable risk of irreversible harm, immediate action should be taken to avoid such harm.
International Recognition:
- Emphasized in the 11 Principles of the UN Resolution on the World Charter for Nature, 1982.
- Reiterated in the Rio Conference of 1992.

Concept: the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ means that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. This for the damage done to the natural environment. ‘Polluter Pays Principle is also known as ‘Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
The ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ exposes the polluter to ‘two-fold liability –(i) compensation to the victims of pollution, and (ii) ecological restoration. This is known as ‘Two–fold Liability
Key Case Law:
- Evolved from the rule of absolute liability laid down by the Supreme Court in the Shriram Gas Leak Case. The court held that the absolute liability for environmental harm extends to the cost of restoring the degraded environment, in addition to compensating the victims of pollution.
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India The Supreme Court directed authorities to assess the loss caused to the environment and recover the amount from the polluter.
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath : The court held that pollution is a civil wrong, and the polluter must pay damages for restoring the environment.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case): The court accepted the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as part of the law of the land.

Concept: The ‘Public Trust Doctrine’ is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use and that the government is required to maintain them for the reasonable use of the public. State is the ‘Trustee’ of all natural resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment.
Key Case Law:
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388: The Supreme Court recognized the public trust doctrine as part of Indian law. The court held that the state is the trustee of all natural resources meant for public use, and the public at large is the beneficiary. The state, as the trustee, has a legal duty to protect these resources for the enjoyment of the general public.

Concept: Absolute liability refers to no-fault liability, where the wrongdoer is not provided with the exceptions available under the rule of strict liability. It is a more stringent form of strict liability.
Key Features:
- The escape of a dangerous thing from one’s land is not necessary, meaning the rule applies to both those injured within and outside the premises.
- The rule has no exceptions, unlike the rule of strict liability.
- The quantum of damages depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the enterprise.
Key Case Law:
- Recognized by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.

Concept: Sustainable development refers to carrying out developmental activities in a manner that preserves the environment for future generations. It integrates development with environmental protection.
Key Case Law:
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 2715): The Supreme Court held that sustainable development is now accepted as a viable concept for environmental development. The court rejected the notion that development and environmental protection are mutually exclusive.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Aravalli Hills Range Case): The court held that development and environmental protection are not enemies, and a balance must be struck between the two.

Definition: The principle of inter-generational equity argues that the current generation holds the earth’s natural resources in trust for future generations and has a duty to preserve them in a condition that allows future generations to enjoy the same benefits.

Significant cases

Common Cause v. Union of India: Recognized intergenerational equity as a general principle of environmental law.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja: Emphasized the dignity and right of all living creatures to live peacefully, drawing from Article 51-A(g).
K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka: Declared that environment and ecology are national assets and subject to intergenerational equity, urging a balance between resource development and environmental preservation.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath: Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) were considered in light of Article 21, linking environmental protection directly to the right to life.
Rangnath Mishra v. Union of India: Highlighted the importance of combining legal and social sanctions to ensure environmental protection and create role models for citizens.

Definition: This principle acknowledges that while all states share responsibility for environmental protection, developed countries bear a larger burden due to their historical contribution to environmental degradation and greater financial and technological capacity.
Origin: Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration (1992) introduced the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Significant Cases: Although this principle is more prominent in international climate change negotiations (such as the Kyoto Protocol), India has supported it in global forums, advocating that developed countries must take the lead in mitigating climate change while providing financial and technological assistance to developing nations.

Definition: Under this principle, states have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources but must ensure that their activities do not harm the environment of other states.
Origin: Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration (1972) and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration (1992) outlined this principle, recognizing that while states have sovereignty over their resources, they are also responsible for preventing trans-boundary environmental harm.
Significant Case: Trail Smelter Arbitration (Canada-US) – Though an international case, this principle has shaped global environmental law by imposing a duty on states to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing environmental harm to other states.