Sustainable Development and Doctrines for Protection on Environment | Environmental Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

Sustainable development is a concept that emphasizes the balance between environmental protection and economic growth, viewing them as interconnected and mutually supportive.
Key principles of sustainable development include equity among countries and generations, long-term vision, and systemic thinking about the interconnections between economy, society, and environment.

Objectives of sustainable development focus on:

• Environmental protection through decoupling economic growth from environmental harm.
• Social equity by upholding human rights, cultural diversity, and equal opportunities.
• Economic prosperity through innovation and competitiveness for higher living standards.
• International responsibilities by promoting democracy, peace, and sustainable development principles.

Stockholm Declaration 1972

• Principle 3: The Earth's capacity to produce vital renewable resources should be preserved and restored whenever practical.
• Principle 5: Non-renewable resources must be used in a way that protects against the risk of their future exhaustion.
• Principle 11: Environmental protection policies of all countries should support, rather than harm, the present or future development potential of developing nations.

Brundtland Commission 1987

• The concept of needs, particularly the essential needs of the world's poor, which should be given overriding priority.
• The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.

Earth Summit

• This conference prompted a global reevaluation of how human activities impact the natural environment and resources, emphasizing the need for sustainable development.
• The Earth Summit was the largest U.N. conference ever held and set the world on a path towards sustainable development, aiming to meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.

Some major achievements of the Earth Summit include the following documents:

• Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
• Agenda 21
• Forest Principles
• Two legally binding conventions:
  • Convention on Climate Change
  • Convention on Biodiversity

Basic Understanding of Sustainable Development

Principles Involved in Sustainable Development

• Inter-Generational Equity
• Precautionary Principle
• Polluter pays Principle
• Public Trust Doctrine
• Absolute Liability Principle
• Environmental Awareness Programmes

Inter - Generational Equity

• Intergenerational equity simply implies a duty of the present generation towards future generations.
• A trust in which present generations of human beings are obliged to take care of natural resources and ecology so that all future generations shall also have an equal chance to enjoy mother nature and the right to life.
• "The present generation has a right to use and enjoy the resources of the Earth but is under an obligation to take into account the long-term impact of its activities and to sustain the resource base and the global environment for the benefit of future generations of humankind."
• The Brundtland Commission clearly emphasized the importance of the concept of intergenerational equity.
• It states that "we borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying... We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions."
• The Natural Resources are the Permanent assets of mankind and should not be exhausted for one generation.
• The principle of intergenerational equity lays emphasis on the right of each generation of human beings to benefit from the cultural and natural inheritance of the past.

Nexus between the Inter-generational & Intra-generational Equity Principles of Inter-generational Equity.
Principle I & II of the Stockholm declaration speaks about the Inter-generational Equity, three principles which are the basis for the intergenerational equity are as follows

• Conservation of Options: Each Generation should be required to conserve the diversity of the natural and cultural base, so that it doesn't restrict the options available to future generations in solving their problems and satisfying their needs.
• Conservation of Quality: Each generation should be required to maintain the quality of the planet so in no worse condition,
• Conservation of Access: Each generation should provide its members with equitable rights of access to the legacy of past generations and should conserve for the generations there are two theories of intergenerational equity;
• Our relationship to other generations of our own species and our relationship to the natural system of which we are a part.
• All generations are inherently linked to the other generations, past and future in using common patrimony of the earth.
• The Natural Resources are the permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation, lays emphasis on the right of each generation of human beings to benefit from the cultural and natural inheritance of its pasts generation.

State of Himachal pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products, AIR 1996 SC 149

• Katha is a necessary ingredient in pan and pan masalas. Katha is derived from the Khair tree, with the central portion of the tree used for pan masala products. These trees are found in considerable numbers in Himachal Pradesh.
• A writ petition was filed by Ganesh Wood Products against the decision of the government of the state of Himachal Pradesh to refuse the establishment of Katha Factories in the state.
• The Government submitted that such establishment would lead to indiscriminate felling of the Khair trees, as the manufacturing of Katha was not sufficient to sustain the proposed industries.
• The Court emphasized that during the years 1992 to 1993, every proposed factory using Khair trees was approved by the state authority. This was contrary to the public interest involved in preserving forest wealth and maintaining the environment.
• Judicial Reasoning: The court held that the Himachal Pradesh government body's approach of 'approving any and every proposal' was faulty and myopic. It also violated the National Forest Policy and the State Forest Policy evolved by the Government of India and the Himachal Pradesh Government respectively.
• The Supreme Court stated that "Present Generation has no right to imperil the safety and well-being of the next generation to come thereafter."

Kinkri Devi v State, AIR 1988 HP 4

• The case was adjudicated by Justice P. Deevan and R Thakur. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed alleging that unscientific and uncontrolled quarrying of limestone had caused damage to the Shivalik Hills and posed a danger to the ecology, environment, and inhabitants of the area.
• The Himachal Pradesh High Court pointed out that if a just balance is not struck between development and the environment by properly tapping natural resources, there would be a violation of Article 14,21,48-A, and 51A(g).
• The court emphasized that natural resources must be tapped first, but this should be done in a way that does not seriously harm ecology and environment.
• The court issued interim directions to set up a committee on this matter and proper granting of leases.

K. Guruprasad Rao v State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 418

• The case was decided by Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Ranjan Prakash Desai. The appellant filed a writ petition and prayed for the cancellation of the mining lease granted to the respondent.
• The appellant also issued a mandamus to the official respondent (Aarpe Iron Ore Mines) to stop mining within one kilometer and further prayed for the restoration of the temple to its original state.
• Sustainable Development includes the preservation of historical and archaeological monuments for future generations.

Precautionary Principle

• The precautionary principle emphasizes the idea that prevention is better than cure when it comes to protecting the environment. It advocates for taking adequate precautions to prevent environmental damage before it occurs.
• According to Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, countries are urged to adopt a precautionary approach to environmental protection, even in the face of scientific uncertainty.
• The polluter pays principle is a key aspect of environmental protection, holding polluters responsible for the environmental harm they cause.
• The Assimilative Capacity of the environment refers to its ability to absorb and process pollutants. However, there are limits, beyond which pollution can cause significant harm.
• The rule of law comes into play when there is a disturbance of the environment, ensuring that legal measures are taken to address and rectify the damage.

Rio Declaration

• The Rio Declaration proclaims that the precautionary approach should be widely applied by states to protect the environment.
• It emphasizes that cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation should not be postponed due to lack of full scientific certainty, especially in cases of serious or irreversible damage.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India

• The Supreme Court of India recognized the precautionary principle as integral to sustainable development.
• In this context, the court defined the precautionary principle as the need for environmental measures to anticipate, prevent, and address the causes of environmental degradation.
• When faced with threats of serious and irreversible damage, the lack of scientific certainty should not delay actions to prevent environmental harm.
• The burden of proof lies with the developer or industrialist to demonstrate that their actions are environmentally harmless.
• The court highlighted that in cases of identifiable risks of serious harm, such as species extinction or significant pollution, it may be appropriate to shift the burden of proof onto those proposing potentially harmful activities.

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

• The court, led by Justice S. B. Majumdar and Justice M. Jagannatha Rao, addressed issues related to municipal administration and urban development in Andhra Pradesh.
• The Andhra Pradesh Government prohibited various types of development within a 10 km radius of Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes, which serve as water reservoirs for Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
• When an industry sought to establish itself within the prohibited area, the court ordered the Andhra Pradesh Government to take action in consultation with the Pollution Control Board to prevent pollution of drinking water.
• The court emphasized that no industries should pollute these water bodies and that industrial activities within the radius should be closely regulated.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Mahal Case)

• The Supreme Court applied the precautionary principle to protect the Taj Mahal from air pollution.
• M.C. Mehta, a concerned advocate, brought the case to the court in 1984, highlighting the threat to the Taj Mahal from air pollutants.
• The court noted that emissions from foundries,chemical industries, and the Mathura Refinery were damaging the Taj Mahal.
• Pollutants such as sulphur dioxide from the Mathura Refinery contributed to acid rain, which corroded the marble.
• Other sources of pollution included industrial emissions,bricks kilns,vehicular traffic, and generator sets.
• The court observed that the white marble of the Taj Mahal was yellowing and blackening due to pollution, with the decay being more evident inside the monument.
• The Taj Mahal, apart from being a cultural heritage site, was recognized as an economic asset due to its role in attracting over two million tourists annually.
• The court monitored the case for over three years, and expert studies confirmed the damaging effects of emissions from coke and coal-based industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone.
• The court stressed the need to eliminate atmospheric pollution in the TTZ and ordered identified potential polluting industries to switch to natural gas as an industrial fuel.

Polluter Pays Principle

• The polluter pays principle imposes absolute liability on those responsible for environmental harm, requiring them to pay penalties and compensation.
• According to Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration, polluters are responsible for their actions and must contribute to environmental protection.
• The principle emphasizes that the polluter is accountable for compensating and repairing damage caused by their actions.

M.C. Mehta v. Kamalnath (1997)

• Decided by Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice S. Sagir Ahmad.
• Span Motels encroached upon additional land adjoining the leasehold area and altered the course of the Beas River, causing ecological damage.
• The court relied on the public trust doctrine, emphasizing that the state is the trustee of natural resources for the public benefit.
• The court quashed the leases granted to Span Motels and directed the state government to restore the land to its original condition.
• The polluter pays principle was applied, and Span Motels was ordered to pay damages for the ecological harm caused.
• The court emphasized that the polluter is responsible for compensating and repairing the damage caused by their actions, reflecting the essence of the polluter pays principle.

Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

• The Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action filed a case to stop and rectify pollution caused by chemical plants in Bichhri village, Rajasthan.
• These plants produced oleum,single super phosphate, and the toxic "H" acid, which is banned in western countries.
• The Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs 38.385 crores on Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd for remediating over 350 hectares of polluted land.
• The Court also fined HACL Rs 10 Lakh for prolonging litigation despite the court's earlier decision in 1997.
• The polluter pays principle was emphasized, holding polluters accountable for damage to humans and the environment.
• The Court ordered compensation for pollution victims and restoration of environmental degradation.
• The Central Government was tasked with determining the funds needed for remedial measures based on the NEERI report.
• NEERI's 1994 report estimated Rs 4,00,00,000/- for reversing soil and water contamination.

S. Jagannath v. UOI (1997)

• The case, decided by Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Sagir Ahmad, involved issues related to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution, as well as provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification of 1991, and the Water Act of 1974.
• The court examined the environmental impact of the shrimp culture industry in Chilka and Pulikat lakes (Orissa), which was causing salinity of soil and drinking water, and turbidity of water courses, adversely affecting local flora and fauna.
• The petitioner sought the enforcement of the CRZ Notification of 1991 to prohibit intensive and semi-intensive prawn farming in ecologically fragile coastal areas and the establishment of a National Coastal Management Authority to safeguard marine life.
• The court found that commercial aquaculture farming was leading to significant degradation of mangrove ecosystems, pollution of potable water sources, and a decline in fish catch.
• The court emphasized the need to maintain the ecological balance and recreational value of the coastal area.
• The court issued orders to prevent the conversion of agricultural land into shrimp culture farms and to establish an authority under the central government to oversee aquaculture industries.
• Aquaculture industries operating within a 1 km radius of Chilka lake were required to compensate affected individuals, and those operating outside the CRZ were required to obtain necessary permissions and clearances from the designated authority.

Public Trust Doctrine

• The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is a legal principle that holds the state responsible for protecting and managing certain natural resources for the benefit of the public.
• Under PTD, resources like rivers, lakes, forests, and other natural assets are considered common property, and the government acts as a trustee to ensure their preservation and accessibility for all citizens.
• The doctrine is rooted in common law and has been influenced by concepts from Roman law and early English common law.
• PTD aims to prevent the privatization or commercial exploitation of these resources, emphasizing their importance for public welfare and environmental sustainability.

Key Principles of Public Trust Doctrine

• Natural resources such as rivers, lakes, and forests are deemed gifts of nature and should be freely available to all, regardless of social status.
• The government acts as a trustee, ensuring these resources are protected for public enjoyment rather than for private or commercial use.
• The doctrine is based on the idea that certain lands and resources are held in trust for the public, with the state retaining rights in these resources on behalf of the public.
• Historical foundations of PTD include Roman law, which recognized common rights to air, water, and seashores, and English common law, which established public rights to tidelands.
• In India, the PTD has evolved through Supreme Court decisions, drawing from sources like common law and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and environmental protection.

Case Laws Illustrating Public Trust Doctrine

• The Supreme Court ruled against the construction of an underground shopping complex in a public park, emphasizing the violation of the public trust doctrine.
• The Court found the agreement between the builder and the local authority unreasonable and against public policy.
• The decision reaffirmed the role of public authorities as trustees of natural resources and the importance of maintaining public spaces.

Perumatty Grama Panchayat v State of Kerala:

• The case involved the Coca-Cola Company's excessive groundwater extraction for beverage production in Kerala.
• The local Panchayat denied the company's license renewal due to groundwater depletion affecting local communities.
• The Supreme Court upheld the Panchayat's authority to protect groundwater, emphasizing the state's duty as a trustee of natural resources.
• The right to clean water and air is integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

• The Public Trust Doctrine emphasizes the government's role in safeguarding natural resources for public use and environmental sustainability.
• Judicial decisions have reinforced the importance of this doctrine in protecting community rights and ensuring equitable access to essential resources.
• Cases like M. I. Builders and Perumatty Grama Panchayat highlight the practical application of PTD in addressing environmental and public welfare concerns.

Absolute Liability

• Absolute liability refers to a legal principle where a party is held liable for damages regardless of fault or negligence. It is a stricter form of liability compared to strict liability, where certain exceptions may apply.
• In the context of Indian law, absolute liability was established in the case of M. C. Mehta v Union of India, where the Supreme Court recognized the need for a more stringent standard of liability for hazardous activities.
• The key distinctions between strict and absolute liability include:
• 
  
  • Scope of Liability: Absolute liability applies only to enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, while strict liability may cover other industries as well.
  • Escape of Dangerous Thing: In absolute liability, the escape of a dangerous thing from one's land is not a requirement for liability, meaning injuries within the premises are also covered.
  • Exceptions: Unlike strict liability, absolute liability does not allow for exceptions or defenses.
  • Quantum of Damages: The extent of damages in absolute liability cases depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the enterprise.
• In the case of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of liability and compensation for the victims of the gas leak incident.
• The court considered whether to continue with the principle of strict liability or to establish a new principle of absolute liability, which would be more stringent and binding.
• M. C. Mehta, the petitioner in the case, sought the closure of Shriram Industries, a hazardous industry located in a densely populated area, and raised concerns about pollution and safety standards.
• The court directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to appoint an inspector to monitor pollution standards and to ensure worker safety measures were in place.
• The key difference between strict and absolute liability, as laid down by the Supreme Court, is that absolute liability applies to hazardous activities without exceptions, while strict liability allows for certain defenses.
• The principle of absolute liability emphasizes that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities must conduct their operations with the highest safety standards, and any harm resulting from such activities makes them liable for damages.

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case

• The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster case involved a catastrophic leak of toxic gases, primarily Methyl Isocyanate, from the Union Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) plant in Bhopal in 1984. This incident resulted in immediate deaths and long-term health issues for the local population.
• Legal actions were initiated against UCIL and its parent company, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), for damages. The Union of India also filed a suit on behalf of the affected parties under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985.
• The U.S. District Court dismissed the suits filed against UCC, citing forum inconvenience, and encouraged Indian judiciary to handle the cases.
• The Supreme Court of India played a crucial role in the settlement of claims, with a significant amount of 470 million U.S. Dollars agreed upon for compensation, leading to the termination of civil and criminal proceedings against UCC and UCIL.
• The settlement faced criticism on grounds of quashing criminal cases and the adequacy of compensation. However, the Supreme Court upheld the settlement, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the case.
• The court clarified that the settlement did not imply joint tort-feasor responsibilities and highlighted the distinction between the roles of the Union of India and the alleged hazardous entrepreneurs.
• Overall, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster case illustrates the complexities of legal responsibility, compensation, and the balance between public welfare and corporate accountability in the wake of a major industrial disaster.