Test: Landmark Case Laws and Recent Developments - CLAT PG MCQ

The Supreme Court established the Absolute Liability Principle in this case, stating that industries engaged in dangerous activities are fully responsible for any harm caused, without any defenses. This principle emphasizes that even if a company takes precautions, it cannot escape liability for harm resulting from its hazardous operations. This ruling aimed to ensure accountability in industries that pose risks to public safety and the environment.

The Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India case introduced the Precautionary Principle, which mandates preventive action to avoid environmental harm, and the Polluter Pays Principle, which holds that those who pollute must bear the costs of managing the pollution. This case marked a significant enhancement in the legal framework for environmental protection in India, ensuring that industries take responsibility for their environmental impact.

The Supreme Court allowed the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam but mandated strict environmental and social safeguards. This included ensuring proper rehabilitation for displaced communities and highlighting the need for sustainable development that balances economic benefits with environmental protection and human rights considerations. This ruling reflects the court's commitment to addressing both development needs and environmental sustainability.

The Public Trust Doctrine is the principle that establishes the government's stewardship over natural resources like rivers and forests for the benefit of the public. This doctrine was highlighted in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, where the court ruled that private entities cannot exploit public natural resources for personal gain, thereby reinforcing the need for protecting ecological integrity.

In the Right Against Climate Change case, the Supreme Court recognized that individuals have a right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change under Article 21, which guarantees the right to a clean environment. This landmark ruling emphasizes the judiciary's role in linking environmental rights with human rights and highlights the importance of biodiversity conservation while promoting sustainable energy initiatives.

Absolute Liability means that industries are fully responsible for any environmental harm they cause, regardless of the precautions taken to prevent such harm. This concept, established in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, aims to ensure that victims of industrial accidents and environmental degradation receive compensation and that industries cannot escape liability using defenses available under traditional liability frameworks.

The Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act of 2023 stated that zoos and safaris would not be classified as "forest areas," potentially allowing for the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. This amendment has faced criticism for weakening the protections established under previous laws that aimed to safeguard India’s forests, highlighting the ongoing tension between development and conservation efforts.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) initiated contempt action against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for illegally cutting down trees in the Ridge area of North Delhi. This action underscored the court's commitment to enforcing environmental regulations and protecting urban green spaces, which are vital for maintaining ecological balance and public health.

The primary focus of global climate litigation trends from 2023 to 2025 is to hold governments and corporations accountable for their roles in climate change. Cases like Held v. Montana reflect a growing recognition of climate rights, where courts are increasingly linking environmental degradation to human rights violations, thereby pushing for stronger legal measures to combat climate change and protect vulnerable communities.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Jallikattu case that animal welfare laws, specifically the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, take precedence over cultural traditions that cause harm to animals. This decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding animal rights as part of broader environmental protections and emphasizes that cultural practices cannot justify animal suffering.