c) Is the polluter pays principle a sufficient solution to the problem at hand,

or does it fall short in covering the issues holistically?

As Plato rightly said " If you have polluted the water then you have to clean
it up". The polluter pays principle states that whoever is responsible for damage
to the environment should bear the cost associated with it. The Polluter Pays
Principle (PPP) is one of the internationally recognized principles that influence
the shaping of environmental policy at both the national and international level. If
properly construed, this is a sound principle for dealing with those who pollute. In
Indian context , polluter pay principle as interpreted by Supreme court, is not only
mean compensation paid to victims of pollution but also pay the cost of restoring
environment.
Few people could disagree with what seems at first glance to be such a
straightforward proposition. The major hurdle in this principle is the evaluation of
monetary cost of environment damage. It is often difficult to quantify ecological
damages, which is irreversible, in monetary terms. Previously the fine was very
low. In the recent example of world cultural festival held on the floodplains of
Yamuna, National Green Tribunal ordered Sri Sri foundation to pay rupees 5
crore as a fine and also ordered to convert this flood plain into Yamuna
Biodiversity Park. Even rupees 5 crore cost as imposed on organisers of World
Cultural Festival looks inadequate to restore biodiversity in Yamuna flood plains.
The enforcement machinery is weak and it does not have sufficient capacity to
calculate the damage and cost.
Monetary compensation can not restore environment exactly. Damage
done to environment is permanent and irreversible. We can take the example of
construction and human activities in bio-diverse areas like rainforest, river banks
etc, where polluter had paid significant monetary amount in turn of their activities
in those areas, but these compensation did not help to restore biodiversity in
these regions. Another problem appears with the principle itself there is no
clarity on how exactly the damages should be calculated. This means that a
polluter may be asked to pay for the actual costs of cleanup, the damage caused
to the victims of environmental damage, a fine or a penalty based on their ability
to pay, a general levy aimed at a clean-up of the problem as a whole, or all of the
above.

Overexploitation of resources had lead to damage the environment by

damaging the existing biodiversity. By shifting focus on remedial action and
compensation, it may obviate needs for alternatives and preventive measures. A
better principle would be the 'Preventive principle'. The aim of Polluter Pay
principle should be restoration and preservation of environment. There is a need
for proactive and reactive policies, which can prohibit any such activity, which
adversely affect environment, and also help to minimize the impact of these
activities. A better mechanism would be to not allow damaging activities in the
first place as the restoration process rarely yields back the pre-degraded state of
environment.