Final El Project

Sustainable Development
PROJECT REPORT
ON
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Submitted to: Submitted by:
Dr. Sabina Salim Divya bajaj (133/12)
U.I.L.S. Tania (145/12)
Pooja (200/12)
Pooja Bansal (207/12)

Acknowledgement
Every project big or small is successful largely due to the effort of a number of
wonderful people who have always given their valuable advice or lent a
helping hand. We sincerely appreciate the inspiration; support and guidance of
all those people who have been instrumental in making this project a success.
We are extremely grateful to Dr.Sabina for making the
resources available at right time and providing valuable insights leading to the
successful completion of my project.
We would also like to thank all the library members for their critical advice
and making me available the books and commentaries for the project.
Last but not the least we place a deep sense of gratitude to my family
members and my friends who have been constant source of inspiration during
the preparation of this project work.
INDEX
Sustainable development- Introduction
Principles of Sustainable development
Precautionary Principle
Public Trust Principle
Compiled By Divya Bajaj (133/12)
Polluter Pays Principle
Protection of Natural Resources
Compiled by Pooja Bansal (207/12)
Rio Convention on Sustainable development
Compiled by Pooja (200/12)
Sustainable Development and Indian Judiciary
Conclusion
Compiled by Tania (145/12)
Bibliography
TABLE OF CASES
A
Ambica quarry works vs. State of Gujarat
B
Banwasi Seva Ashram vs. State of U.P
C
Calcuttas case
D
Dehradun Quarrys case
Doon valley case
I
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P
K
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa
M
M.C. Mehta vs. Kamalnath
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
N
N.D. Jayal v. Union of India
P
Pradeep Krishen vs. Union of India
R
R (National Grid Gas Plc) v. Environment Agency
Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India
Research Foundation for Science Technology National Research Policy v. Union Of India
Research Foundation for Science (18) v. Union of India
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.PS. Jagannath v. Union of India
T
Tarun Bhagat Singh vs. Union of India
V
Virendra Gaur and others v State of Haryana
Vellor Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India
INTRODUCTION: Sustainable Development
What is meant by the phrase 'sustainable development'? Although the idea can
be traced back at least to 1972 and the United Nations Stockholm Conference
on the Human Environment, the common definition which is used most often
comes from the Brundtland Commission's 1987 Report, Our Common Future,
in which it was suggested that the phrase covered1:
'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
This definition is, however, vague, and requires further elaboration.
First, the primary objective of the principle is to meet current and future human
needs and aspirations (there is a further issue in relation to what is meant by
'needs and aspirations'). Thus the emphasis is anthropocentric although under
the Brundtland Commission's definition, the environment is considered to be an
integral part of human well-being. Secondly, there is an underlying objective of
fairness in the manner of development which applies as between different
sectors of the current generation (e.g. 'poor' and 'rich' nations and classes of
society) and future generations (i.e. inter-generational equity). Thus, future
generations have the same rights to develop as we do and preventing such
development would be unfair. Finally, there is an inherent assumption that we
can identify the impact of current activity in terms of resource depletion and the
ability of the environment to absorb pollution. Any doubts over the nature of
the risks involved will inevitably cloud the decisions which need to be made to
achieve the goal of sustainable development.
1
Stuart Bell; Donald MC Gillivray; Environmental Law; 5th Edition, page 39 (2004).
The concept of sustainable development signifies a policy approach or goal

rather that a substantive prescription. Its principal merit is that it modifies the
previously unqualified development concept.
The main features of the concept of sustainable development may be
summarized as follows-
(1) Every human being is part of the community of life, made of all living
creatures.
(2) Every human being has fundamental and equal rights, including the right
to access to the proper standard of life.
(3) Each person and each society is entitled to respect of these rights and is
responsible for the protection of these rights for all others.
(4) Every life form warrants respects independently of its worth to people.
(5) Everyone should take responsibility for his or her impacts n nature.
(6) Everyone should aim to share fairly the benefits and costs of resource
use.
(7) The protection of human rights and the rights of nature is a worldwide
responsibility that transcends all cultural, ideological and geographical
boundaries.
The Supreme Court of India has recognized and accepted the concept of
sustainable development as an important principle in maintaining the right
balance between the environment and development.
In Vellor Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India, it was observed that

sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own
needs. Sustainable development as a balancing concept between ecology and
development has been accepted as a part of the customary international law
though its salient features have yet to be finalized by the international law
jurists.
SALIENT PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT2

The balance between environmental protection and developmental activities
could only be maintained by strictly following the principles of sustainable
development". This is a development strategy that caters to the needs of the
present without negotiating the ability of upcoming generations to satisfy their
needs. It is a guarantee to the present and a bequeath to the future. All
environment-related development activities should benefit more people while
maintaining the environmental balance. The adherence to sustainable
development principle is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the symbiotic
balance between the right to environment and development.3 The various
principles of sustainable development are as follows:
I. Precautionary Principle
II. Public Trust Principle
III. Polluter Pays Principle
IV. Protection of Natural Resources
I. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The concept of precautionary principle originated in the mid of 1980s from the
German law termed as, 'Vorsorgeprinzip', and the same has been acknowledged
by the international form, with the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection
of the Ozone Layer. The "precautionary measures", which had already been
taken at both the national and the international level has been acknowledged by
the participating parties in this Convention. The decisions adopted by the states
within the North Sea Ministerial Conference mark the first use of this principle
in international law.4
2
P.S. Jaswal, Nishtha Jaswal; Environmental Law; 3rd Edition, page 119 (2012).
3
See N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362 at 382-383.
4
Dr. Vidya B. Negi; Environmental Law- Issues & Concerns; page 136 (2011).
The Principle of Precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm

and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful
activity. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of
concrete danger, but also by justified concern or risk potential. The principle is
still evolving, for though accepted as part of the international customary law,
'the consequences of its application in any potential situation will be influenced
by the circumstances of each case'.5 The principle suggests that where there is
an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, extinction of
species, widespread toxic pollution is the major threat to essential ecological
processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or
entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment, and
where there is uncertainty as to the extent or nature of the damage, the burden
of proof be placed on.
The main purpose of the "precautionary principle" is to ensure that a substance
or activity posing a threat to the environment is prevented from adversely
affecting the environment, even if there is no conclusive scientific proof of
linking that particular substance or activity to environmental damage.6 The
words "substance" and "activity" imply substances and activities introduced as
a result of human intervention. In the context of the municipal law the
"precautionary principle" means7:
i. Environmental measures by the State Government and the local
authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation.
ii. Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
5
See Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549 at 572.
6
Gurdip Singh, Environmental Law- International and National Perspectives, 212 (1995).
7
http://www.elaw.in/environ/polluter/
iii. The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show

that his action is environmentally benign.8
The approach to environmental protection occurred initially between 1972 and

1982, based on the concept known as 'assimilative capacity' rule as revealed
from Principle 6 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, earlier. The said
principle assumed that science could provide policy-makers with the
information and means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the
environment to assimilate impacts and it presumed that relevant technical
expertise would be available when environmental harm is predicted and there
would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such harm. But, in the 11 th
Principle of the UN General Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature,
1982, the emphasis shifted to the 'Precautionary Principle' and this was
reiterated in the Rio Conference of 1992 in its Principle 15, which reads as9:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by states according to their capacities. Where, there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for proposing cost-effective measures to prevent
In regard to the cause for the emergence of this principle, Chairman Barton has
observed as under:10
There is nothing to prevent decision-makers from assessing the record and
concluding that there is inadequate information on which to reach a
8
See Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 647 at 658. (This case in popularly
known as Tamil Nadu Tanneries case). See also M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118; Research
Foundation for Science v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
v. C. Kenchappa, (2006) 6 SCC 371 at 384, 386.
9
Dr. Vidya B. Negi; Environmental Law- Issues & Concerns; page 138 (2011).
10
P.S. Jaswal, Nishtha Jaswal; Environmental Law; 3rd Edition, page 125 (2012).
determination. If it is not possible to make a decision with 'some' confidence,

then it makes sense to err on the side of caution and prevent activities that
may cause serious or irreversible harm. An informed decision can be made at
a later stage when additional data is available or resources permit further
research. To ensure that greater caution is taken in environmental
management, implementation of the principle through judicial and legislative
means is necessary.11
From the above observations it is clear that inadequacies of science is a real

basis that has led to the precautionary principle of 1982. It is based on the
theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and prevent environmental
harm, which may indeed become irreversible. In other words, the principle of
precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures
to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harm activity. It is based on
scientific uncertainty. Environmental protection should not only on at protecting
health, property and economic interests but also protect the environment for its
own sake. The precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion
of concrete danger but also by justified concern or risk potential.12
In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India,13 the Court stressed

the view that "the precautionary principle" and "the polluter pays principle" are
essential features of sustainable development and that they have been accepted
as part of the law of the land. The Court had no hesitation in holding that the
precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the
environmental law of the country. The Court also observed that even otherwise,
the above said principles are accepted as part of the customary international law
11
Quoted in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718 at 733-734. M. Id., at 734.
12
Id., at 734.
13
See also Research Foundation for Science Technology National Research Policy v. Union Of India, (2005) 10
SCC 510, (2005) 13 SCC 186.
and hence there should be no difficulty in accepting them as part of our

domestic law.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The "uncertainty" of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to
time has led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and the Rio Conference of 1992. In
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India,14 a three-Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court referred to these changes, to the "precautionary principle"
and the new concept of "burden of proof' in environmental matters. The learned
Judges also observed that the new concept, which places the burden of proof on
the developer or industrialist who is proposing to alter the status quo, has also
become part of our environmental law.
DIFFICULTY IN ITS APPLICATION
The application of precautionary principle is not always very easy or in a

straitjacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreversible or
irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped, there may be
irreparable damage to the economic interests. In case of doubt, however,
protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest.
Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm.
The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always
necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment. It
must, however, be remembered that development and protection of environment
are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimizing adverse
effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on
14
Ibid.
development activity by applying the principle of sustainable development, in

that eventuality, development has to go on.15
In M.C. Mehta vs. Kamalnath,16 upholding, it as a part of the environmental

law, the Supreme Court once again confirmed the precautionary principle. The
following the reasonable man test, the exemptions under Sec. 19 of the Water
Act, 1974, were held to have dangerous potential, as they clearly ignored the
precautionary principle, which could be 'catastrophic'.
It is to be noted that while the inadequacies of science have led to the

"precautionary principle", the said "precautionary principle" in its turn, has led
to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden
as to the absence of injurious effects of the action proposed, is placed on those
who want to change the status quo. This is often termed as a reversal of burden
proof, because otherwise in environmental cases, those opposing the change
would be compelled to shoulder the evidentiary burden, a procedure which is
not fair. Therefore, it is necessary that the party attempting to preserve the
status quo while maintaining a less polluted State should not carry the burden of
proof and the party, who wants to alter it, must bear this burden.17
The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable of

serious or irreversible harm, including, for example, extinction of species,
widespread toxic pollution in major threats to essential ecological or entity
proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment.
It is also explained that if the environmental risks being run by regulatory

inaction are in some way "uncertain but non-negligible", then regulatory action
is justified. This will lead to the question as to what is the "non-negligible risk".
15
See M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118 at 167-168.
16
(1997)1 SCC 388.
17
See James M. Olson, "Shifting the Burden of Proof", 20 Environmental Law at 898 (1990) quoted in Id., at
734-735.
In such a situation, the burden of proof is to be placed on those attempting to

alter the status quo. They are to discharge this burden by showing the absence
of a "reasonable ecological or medical concern". That is the required standard of
proof. The result would be that if insufficient evidence is presented by them to
alleviate concern about the level of uncertainty, then the presumption should
operate in favor of environmental protection.
The "precautionary principle" has been recognized in almost all the major
international instruments. It has been adopted by the United Nations
Environment Programme. It has also been adopted by various international
conferences on prevention of pollution of seas. In 1990, Bergen Declaration on
Sustainable Development in the European Community while affirming the
precautionary principle provided that environment related action should predict,
prevent and suppress environmentally harmful factors.18 In 1991, "Caring for
the Earth" a document jointly produced by the World Conservation Union,
United Nations Environment Programme and World Wide Fund for Nature,
emphasised that the precautionary principle be made the basis of decisions on
development and environment. The "Earth Summit' of Rio in 1992 recognized
the precautionary principle in many ways.
According to Meinhard Schroder,19 in interpreting the aims of sustainable

development, the relationship between sustainable development and the
precautionary principle poses a problem. He is of the view that one could well
interpret sustainable development as the desired goal and the precautionary
principle as the appropriate strategy for its implementation. This interpretation
takes account of the understandable view that today's use of natural resources
has for the most part reached a point where it is detrimental to sustainable
18
Year Book of International Environmental Law, 429 (1990).
19
Meinhard Schroder, "Sustainable DevelopmentA Principle for Action And an Insrument to secure the
Conditions for Survival for Future Generations", 101-113 at 106, Law And State, Vol. 51 (1995).
development, with the result that any further expansion of consumption is

contrary to the goal of sustainable development and, in this respect
precautionary action will have to be taken. Rio Declaration does not see any
difference in principle between sustainable development and the precautionary
principle. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration expresses the expectation that
governments will apply the precautionary principle widely according to their
ability. The caveats "according to their ability" and "widely" have to be seen
against the background of development needs. To the extent that these needs
can put environmental protection on the back burnerat least temporarily
there may be a deviation from strict application of the precautionary principle
and utilitarian approval of sustainable development will take pride of place over
environmental precautions.20
Thus, 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. In India, the Courts have applied "polluter pays
principle" in many cases.21
In Research Foundation For Science (18) v. Union of India,22 the Supreme

Court has explained that the "Precautionary Principle" generally describes an
approach to the protection of the environment or human health based on
precaution even where there is no clear evidence of harm or risk of harm from
an activity or substance. It is a part of the principle of sustainable development.
20
Ibid.
21
See for example, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388; Consumer Education & Research Society v.
Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 599; Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 181; Nature Lovers Movement
v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 Ker. 131; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 356; Research Foundation
for Science (18) v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186.
22
(2005) 13 SCC 186.
It provides for taking protection against specific environmental hazards by

avoiding or reducing environmental risks before specific harms are experienced.
II. Polluter Pays Principle:

'If you make a mess, it's your duty to clean it up'23
Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) has become a popular catchphrase in recent times.
The principle basically means that the producer of the goods or other items
should be responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution
which the process causes. This includes environmental costs as well as direct
costs to people or property. It also coves costs incurred in avoiding pollution,
and not just those related to remedying any damage.
Many economists claim that much environmental harm is caused by producers

who externalize the costs of their activities. For example, factories that emit
unfiltered exhaust into the atmosphere or discharge untreated chemicals into a
river pay little to dispose of their waste. Instead, the cost of waste disposal in
the form of pollution is borne by the entire community. Similarly, the driver of
an automobile bears the costs of fuel and maintenance but externalizes the costs
associated with the gases emitted from the tailpipe.
Accordingly, the purpose of many environmental regulations is to force

polluters to bear the real costs of their pollution, though such costs often are
difficult to calculate precisely. In theory, such measures encourage producers of
23
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l54-Interpretation-of-Polluter-Pays-Principle.html (last
visited on 2nd April, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.)
pollution to make cleaner products or to use cleaner technologies.24 The

principle may be explained as follows-
The polluter pays principle is one which is aimed at ensuring that the
costs of environmental damage caused by polluting activities are born in
full by the person responsible for such pollution; the polluter.
The principle means-

The polluter should pay for the administration of the pollution control
system; and
The polluter should pay for the consequences of the pollution for
example, compensation and clean-up.
Under the Principle it is not the role of Government to meet the costs involved
in either prevention of damage caused by pollution or in carrying out remedial
measures, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the
pollution incident to the tax payer.25
24
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/765435/environmental-law/224613/The-precautionary-
principle#toc224615 (last visited on 2nd April, 2016 at 6:18 p.m.)
25
Tiwari, A.K., Environmental Laws in India, Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2006, Pg 222 &
223
International Background:
The Polluter pays principle was adopted in 1972 first time at the International
level as guiding principles concerning the international aspects of environment
policies based on the principle experienced revival by OECD 26 Council in 1974.
This principle was introduced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development in a recommendation of 1972, acquired a First European
Community Treaty Law status in article 25 of the single European Act, 1986
and later convention status in marine regional treaties concluded in 1992, such
as the Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
North East Atlantic and the Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area.
The application of the polluter pays principle in 1989 was extended to

accidental pollution therefore; the principle is not to be restricted to chronic
polluter, as per the recommendation made by the council in 1989. In 1991, the
OECD council reiterated this principle in its recommendation on the uses of
economic instrument in environment policy. The polluter pays principle was
advocated by countries, Belgium, France and Germany in their national laws.
This principle has been incorporated in the 1980 by the Athen Protocol, the
1992 Helsinki Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial
Accidents and the 1993 Lugano Convention on Civil Liability for damage
resulting from activities dangerous to environment in the International Law. The
polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the
public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.27
26
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
27
Dr. Negi Vidya Bhagat, Environmental Laws Issues and Concerns, Regal Publications, 1st Edition,
New Delhi, 2011, pg 141 & 142
The polluter pays principle secured international support for the first time in the
Rio Declaration held in 1992 UNCED28 Conference (Earth Summit) wherein
more than 150 countries participated. This was the largest UN Conference ever
held and it put world on the path of sustainable development which aims at
meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs.
The Earth Summit was guided and inspired by a remarkable document of 1987,
i.e., Brundtland report. It gave a series of principles defining the rights and
responsibilities of States in their area. The polluter pays principle has been
incorporated in principle 16 which provides that national authority should
endeavour to promote the internationalization of environmental costs and use of
economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter
should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public
interest and without distorting international trade and investment.29
The polluter pays principle is essentially a principle directed to the

internalization of environmental costs. This involves the internalization of
environmental costs into decision making for economic and other development
plans, programmes and projects that are likely to effect the environment. The
principle requires accounting for both the short-term and the long-term external
environmental costs.
The 1992, Convention on the Marine Environment for its protection, according
to Article 2(2)(b) states that the, polluter pays principle means; the cost of
pollution prevention, control and reduction measures are to be born by the
polluter. Most literature available about the principle states that the polluter
28
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
29
Jaswal P.S. & Nishtha Jaswal, Environmental Law Environment Protection, Sustainable Development
and the Law, Allahabad Law Agency, 3rd Edition, Faridabad, Reprint 2011, pg 99 & 101
pays principle first arose in the International OECD document. But it was Alfred
Marshall Pigou, who developed the concept of externalities, costs imposed or
benefits conferred and coined the notion of pollution cost. To discourage the
activity that caused the negative externality, Pigou activated a tax on activity.
The OECDs definition of this principle is that the polluter should bear the
expenses of carrying out measures decided by public authorities to ensure that
the environment is at an acceptable stage. In other words, it is stated that the
cost of these measures should be reflected in the cost of goods and services,
which cause pollution in production and in its consumption.30
The action programme on Environment, held in 1972, has laid down some
fundamental principles of European community environmental policy. They
are31:
1. Prevention is better than cure or remedy.
2. Pollution or damage to environment must be totally rectified.
3. The polluter should pay the costs both for direct compensation and also to
protect environment.
4. Environmental policies should form a component of the European
Communities other policies.
The decision has been taken by both the European Union and UK, as a matter of
principle, that the costs associated with preventing pollution, and minimizing its
impact on the environment, should be borne by those responsible for it.32 In R
(National Grid Gas Plc) v. Environment Agency33 the House of Lords
30
Dr. Negi, Supra note 5, at 143
31
Dr. Darsini G. Indra Priya & Prof. Devi K. Uma, Environmental Law and Sustainable Development,
Regal Publications, 1st Edition, New Delhi, 2010, Pg 67
32
Q C David Woolley, Smit John Pugh, Langham Richard & Upton William, Environmental Law, Oxford
University Press, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 2009, pg 143
33
(2007) UKHL 30
decided that the cost of remediation should be borne by the person causing the
pollution, and not any innocent successor in title. The Kyoto Protocol is also an
example of application of the PPP: parties that have obligations to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions must bear the costs of reducing (prevention and
control) such polluting emissions.
INDIAN JUDICIARY AND POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
Supreme Court of India for the first time applied expressly the polluter pays
principle in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
India34 and held that the responsibility for repairing the environmental damage
was that of the offending industry. The court further held that Section 3 and 5 of
the Environment Protection Act, 1986 empowered the Central Government to
give directions and take measures for giving effect to polluter pays principle. In
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India35 the Supreme Court
declared in unequivocal terms that the polluter pays principle is part of the
environmental jurisprudence of India. Explaining the meaning and scope of the
polluter pays principle the Court observed
The polluter pays principle as interpreted by the Court means that the absolute
liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims
of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.
Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of sustainable
development and such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual
sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
Further, the Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority

under section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 for implementation
of the polluter pays principle. The Court opined that the authority should further
determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of
reversing the damaged environment. The Court further held that the polluting
tanneries were liable to pay for the past pollution generated by them, which
resulted in the environmental degradation and suffering to the residents of the
34
AIR 1996 SC 1446
35
AIR 1996 SC 2715
area. In addition to this pollution fine of Rs 10000 each on all the polluting
tanneries was also imposed, this money along with the compensation amount
recovered from the polluters were directed to be deposited under a separate head
called Environment Protection Fund. The fund was to be used for the purpose
of giving compensation to affected persons and for restoring the damaged
environment.36
In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath37 the court after referring the Vellore case
reiterated, one who pollutes the environment must pay to reverse the damage
caused by his acts. It was proved in the case that Sapan Motels Private Limited
used earth-movers and bulldozers to turn the course of the river in order to save
the Motel from future floods. On the basis of polluter pays principle court held
that the Motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the
environment and ecology of the area. The pollution caused by various
constructions made by the Motel in the riverbed and in the banks of River Beas
has to be removed and reversed. Further, the Court asked the National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEERI) to submit an
assessment of the cost which was likely to be incurred for reversing the damage
caused by the Motel to the environment and ecology of the area.
In S. Jagannath v. Union of India38 the Court once again applied the polluter
pays principle and passed orders against the shrimp farming culture industry
found guilty of Polluting Coastal areas. The Central Government was directed
by the Court to constitute an authority under section 3(3) of the Environment
Protection Act, 1986 to deal with the situation created by the shrimp culture
industry in the Coastal States and Union Territories. The court held that shrimp
36
AIR 1996 SC 2721
37
(1997) 1 SCC 388
38
(1997) 2 SCC 87
culture industry was liable to compensate the affected persons on the basis of
the polluter pays principle. The court further held that the aforesaid authority
should assess the loss to the environment in the affected areas and identify the
individuals or families who had suffered because of the pollution, and assess the
compensation to be paid to them. In addition to this, the court held that, the
authority should further determine the compensation to be recovered from the
polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment.
The Calcutta Tanneries case39 is yet another example where the court applied
the polluter pays principle as explained by it in Vellore case. The matter before
the court involved issues relating to pollution caused by about 550 tanneries
located in the adjoining areas in the eastern fringe of the city of Kolkata. The
court in its order directed the State Government to appoint an
Authority/Commissioner to assess the loss to the environment in the areas
affected by the pollution caused by the tanneries. It was held by the court that
the said authority should determine the compensation to be recovered from the
polluter-tanneries as cost of reversing the damaged environment
India launched a "green" court on October 19, 2010 to make polluters pay
damages as it steps up its policing of the country's environmental laws. The then
Indian Environment Minister said this is the first body of its kind (in India) to
apply the polluter pays principle and the principle of sustainable development,
and also that India was only the third country in the world after Australia and
New Zealand to set up such a tribunal. Anybody and everybody can approach
the tribunal to claim civil damages arising out of inadequate implementation of
environment laws said Jairam Ramesh, the then environment minister. He also
insisted that India's desire for fast economic growth must not come at the
expense of the environment. The tribunal, which will operate around India, is to
39
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India,(1997) 2 SCC 411
be made up of members who are environmental experts and has powers to try
all matters related to and arising out of environmental issues. The move to
launch the tribunal was the latest sign of a tougher approach by India to
improving its green track record as concerns mount about the impact of growing
industrialization on air and water quality, forests and wildlife.40
One of the vital guarantees in our Constitution is the protection of the Right to
Life enshrined in Article 21. Our Supreme Court by creative interpretation ruled
that the expression life does not connote merely physical existence but
embraces the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,
namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and
shelter over the head. Thereafter it further expanded the concept of the right to
live with human dignity to encompass within its ambit, the protection and
preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and
water. Our Constitution evinces great concern for environment. Article 48-A of
the Directive Principle mandates that the state shall endeavour to protect and
improve the environment. One of the fundamental duties prescribed in Article
51-A is, inter alia, to protect and improve the natural environment.41 Moreover
Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has recognized the
polluter pays principle which states that Tribunal shall while passing any order
or award shall consider the polluter pays principle.
40
http://legal-articles.deysot.com/environmental-law/%2525e2%252580%25259cpolluter
pays%2525e2%252580%25259d-principle-a-policy-principle.html (last visited on 3rd April, 2015 at 9:29
p.m.)
41
Ibid
FLAWS IN THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
It is true that polluter pays principle has a positive effect to reduce pollution.
Most developing countries, however, have not yet subscribed to the PPP as a
main environmental policy guideline.
Principle 16 which defines polluter pays principle simply lacks the normative
character of a rule of law. Moreover, while some treaties require parties to apply
the polluter pays principle, others use softer language of guidance. The principle
only appears in a limited range of post-Rio treaties dealing with pollution of
international water courses, marine pollution, transboundary industrial
accidents, and energy. Although there are examples were it has been used very
broadly in national environmental policy and legislation, it is impossible to
point to any general pattern of state practice.
Implementation has largely been left to national rather than international action.
As a result, both the choice of methods taxation, charges, liability laws and
the degree of implementation, have been very variable, and few states have been
fully consistent in their policy. The most that can be said is that states, inter-
governmental regulatory institutions, and courts can and should take account of
the principle in the development of environmental law and policy, but they are
in no sense bound by international law to make polluter pay.
Moreover, reference to the public interest in Principle 16 leaves ample room for
exceptions and thus for continued governmental subsidy. As adopted at Rio, the
polluter pays principle is neither absolute nor obligatory.42 Legal theorists

discovered few loopholes of this rule. The flaws are as follows43:
Firstly, ambiguity still exists in determining 'who is a polluter'. In legal
terminology, a 'polluter' is someone who directly or indirectly damages
the environment or who creates conditions relating to such damage.
Clearly, this definition is so broad as to be unsupportive in many
situations. For example, Mr. Aryaan owns a BMW .If his BMW emits
harmful gas in the atmosphere, he will be directly liable for the emission
.Furthermore, the manufacturer of the vehicle will be indirectly liable for
committing ecological damage too and so the retailer of the vehicle and
the fuel supplier, and the government who created 'conditions relating to
the damage' by building roads and neglecting public transport regulations.
Second, a large number of poor households, informal sector firms, and
subsistence farmers cannot bear any additional charges for energy or for
waste disposal.
Third, small and medium-size firms from the formal sector, which mainly
serve the home market, find it difficult to pass on higher costs to the
domestic end-users of their products.
Fourth, exporters in developing countries usually cannot shift the burden
of cost internalization to foreign customers due to elastic demand.
Lastly, many environmental problems in developing countries are caused
by an overexploitation of common pool resources. Access to these
common pool resources (in line with the PPP) could be limited in some
cases through assigning private property rights, however, this solution
could lead to severe distributional conflicts.
42
Birnie Patricia & Boyle Alan, International Law And The Environment, Oxford University Press, 2nd
Edition, Oxford, 2002, Pg 93
43
Supra note 1
All of these problems make it difficult to implement the PPP as a guideline for
environmental policy in developing countries. Despite the fact that Polluter Pay
Principle was publicized by early conservationists as a means to reduce
ecological pollution, still many consider it as a 'vague idea'. Some put forward
their argument that under this principle a polluter fulfils his obligations when he
pays at least some of administrative expenses of the agencies who regulate
pollution activities. 'Exxon Valdez' case44 is the best example of this criterion
of Polluter Pays Principle. Others argue that it can only be satisfied by polluters
when they will pay the total depollution cost. And the rest support the view that
tax (like 'Carbon Taxes') should be legitimized on the users of the natural
resources that cause atmospheric hazards.
III. Protection of Natural Resources:
The protection of environment is an essential part of sustainable development.

Without adequate environment protection, development is undermined. In order
to meet the needs on sustainable basis, it is absolutely necessary to use the
Earths natural resources carefully and the natural resource base must be
conserved and enhanced. India is a developing country who has the
responsibility to feed its more than one billion human populations. This factor
certainly creates pressure on the government to use available natural resources
judiciously. Decreasing forest cover is a direct threat to the existence of wild
life that forms essential component of biological diversity and maintains the
required balance in the natural eco-system.
44 In 1989, an oil tanker owned by Exxon spilled out over 300,000 barrels of crude oil into the sea and
caused significant environmental hazard. Exxon was forced to pay $125 million in fines to the federal
government and the state of Alaska and $900 million into a fund for environmental projects controlled
by government, habitat protection, and scientific research, among other things. However, much of the
money that Exxon was forced to pay did not go to alleged victims of the spill. Polluters such as Exxon
should be held responsible, not for violating a bureaucratic proscription about the hunting of birds or
for having harmed some public resource, but because they harmed someone elses person or
property, and they have no right to do that. Moreover, any restitution should be paid to those harmed,
not simply to a government agency that proclaims it will spend the money in the public interest.
[http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/making-the-polluter-pay#axzz2PIKaudlZ (last visited on 3rd
April, 2015 at 11:18 p.m.)]
One of the major environmental problems faced by the common people in India
is pollution of water in rivers and lakes. Unfortunately, today the pollution load
of all the rivers have increased so much that the self-cleansing mechanism of
flowing rivers is unable to keep the rivers free from pollution being created by
the industries and human population situated on the banks.
The answer to the difficult question how to struck a balance between
environment and development has been found in the concept of sustainable
development.
1. CONSERVATION OF FOREST
Deforestation causes ecological imbalances and leads to environmental

deterioration. Deforestation has been taking place on a large scale in India. The
Parliament has responded to this problem by passing the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980, the Government of India has also come out with a new forest policy
in 1988. The judicial response has also favored this great cause of forest
conservation.
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P, 45 justice

Mishra explained the importance of forest; he said that Forests have natural
growth of herbs which provide cure for diseases. It is the forests that provided
shelter for the Rishies and accommodated the ancient Gurukulas. They
also provided food and sport for our forefathers living in the state of nature. Yet
human community depended heavily upon the forests which caused rains and
provided timber, fruits, herbs and sports. He further expressed concern over the
outburst of human population and related developments and blamed them for
the present gloomy condition of forests, as men required more of space for
living and cultivation as well as more of timber.
In Ambica quarry works vs. State of Gujarat46, it was pointed out that 1980
act was an act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological
imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces and further
deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. The primary duty
was to the community and that duty took precedence. The obligation to the
society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals.
The court held in a case that mining operations, though detrimental to forest
growth, are part of layout of the industry; provision should be made for
investment or infrastructural planning of reforest the area and to protect the
environment and regenerate forest.
45
AIR 1987 SC 1037
46
AIR 1983 SC 1073
2. PROTECTION OF WILD LIFE
Supreme Court is facing two major challenges I the area of wildlife protection.
Firstly, resolving the conflict between nature lovers and industrialist exploiting
natural resources in the protested regions. Secondly, to balance the need for
protection of wild life and rights of forest dwellers and villagers living in and
around sanctuaries and national parks, and minimizing human intervention in
such protested areas.
In Pradeep Krishen vs. Union of India47, the petitioner, an environmentalist

filed a public interest litigation challenging the legality and constitutional
validity of an order dated 28-3-1995 issued by the state of Madhya Pradesh,
department of forest, permitting collection of tendu leaves from sanctuaries and
national parks by villagers living around the boundaries thereof with the
avowed object of maintenance of their traditional rights. The petitioner alleged
that the said order has ignored the need to protect the flora and fauna as well as
wild life which are natures laboratory where evolutionary process of life in all
forms takes place. The presence of human beings will not only adversely affect
the flora and the fauna but will also scare away wild life. The court found that
neither the traditional rights of those living in those parks and sanctuaries had
been acquired nor provisions were made to either compensate or rehabilitate
them, the final declaration under section 26-A and 35 of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act,1972 had not been possible. That is the reason why the State
Government had to permit collection of tendu leaves by the impugned order.
HELD- the court observed that if one of the reasons for the shrinkage of forest
cover is the entry of villagers and tribals living in and around the sanctuaries
and the national parks, there can be no doubt that urgent steps must be taken to
prevent any destruction or damage to the environment, the flora and fauna and
wild life in those areas.
3. POLLUTION OF RIVERS AND LAKES
No one can doubt the importance of rivers and lakes, as they provide drinking
water, water for agriculture, habitat for a number of aquatic plants and animals
are a very important component of ecosystem. The river Ganga is one of the
greatest rivers of the world. The Ganga rises in the Himalayas from the
Gangotri Glacier. During the course of its journey of 2525 kms. from the hills to
the Bay of Bengal, municipal sewage from cities, trade effluents from industries
and polluting waste from several sources are discharged into the river resulting
in its pollution.
47
(1996) 5 SCC
In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India48, an active social worker and environment
activist Mr. M.C. Mehta filed public interest litigation for the issue of a
writ/order/direction in the nature of a mandamus to arrest the pollution of the
river water, specially the pollution caused by the tanneries at Jajmau, Kanpur.
The Court pointed out that water is the most important of the elements of nature
and river valleys have been the cradles of civilization from the beginning of the
world. It is the popular belief that the river Ganga is the purifier of all but we
are now led to the situation that action has to be taken to prevent the pollution of
the water of the river Ganga since we have reached to a stage where any further
pollution of the river water is likely to lead to a catastrophe.
The learned Justice further said that it was tragic that the Ganga, which had
since time immemorial, purified the people was being polluted by man in
numerous ways, by dumping of garbage, throwing carcass of dead animals and
discharge of effluents. So, apart from the government, it was the sacred duty of
all those who reside or carry on business around the river Ganga to ensure the
purity of Ganga.
The court referred an Action Plan for prevention of Environment, Government

of India in the year 1985, which pointed out the main sources of pollution of the
Ganga as follows-
(a) Urban liquid waste (sewage, storm drainage mixed with sewage, human,
cattle and kitchen waste carried by drains, etc);
(b) Industrial liquid waste;
(c) Surface run-off of cultivated land where cultivators use chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and such manures the mixing of which
may make the river water unsafe for drinking and bathing;
(d) Surface run-off from areas on which urban solid wastes are dumped;
(e) Surface run-off from areas on which industrial solid wastes are dumped.
4. PROTECTION OF COASTAL REGIONS

Sustainable use of coastal resources requires that some coastal areas be retained
in their natural state or as near to natural as possible. Safeguarding critical
habitats for fish production, preserving genetic resources, protecting scenic and
coastal areas and enjoying natural heritage all may require the protective
management of natural areas.
With the sustainable use of resources foremost in mind, the policy of all nations
should be to provide the necessary legal basis for managing important habitats
48
(1997) 2 SCC 353
and beneficial species. This book presents information helpful to tropical

coastal countries in organizing national systems of marine and coastal protected
areas and in planning and managing selected MPA sites.
Development within coastal areas has increased interest in erosion problems; it

has led to major efforts to manage coastal erosion problems and to restore
coastal capacity to accommodate short-and long-term changes induced by
human activities, extreme events and sea level rise. The erosion problem
becomes worse whenever the countermeasures (i.e. hard or soft structural
options) applied is inappropriate, improperly designed, built, or maintained and
if the effects on adjacent shores are not carefully evaluated. Often erosion is
addressed locally at specific places or at regional or jurisdictional boundaries
instead of at system boundaries that reflect natural processes. This anomaly is
mostly attributable to insufficient knowledge of coastal processes and the
protective function of coastal systems.
Many villages, towns and cities are wholly dependent on sea for the survival of
their habitants. Human interventions like maritime trade, over exploitation of
ocean resources, on-land coastal development and pollution brought by the
rivers ending into the ocean are some of the problems which require immediate
attention in order to save the ecosystem of the coastal areas and the ocean.
It is clear that the Supreme Court favored sustainable development butt at the
same time prime importance to the coastal environment was also accepted by it.
The High Courts were persuaded by the Court to share greater responsibilities
for protection of coastal region. The Court insisted on the compliance of
precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle and directed the polluter
pays principle and directed the authority to assess the amount to be paid by the
polluter for compensating the damage done to the environment and to the
victims of pollution.
BanwasiSeva Ashram vs. State of U.P (AIR 1987)

Facts: The issues of protection and conservation of forests, need for
development and rights for forest dwellers, tribal and local peoples have been
other much debated matters before the Supreme Court. In), on the basis of a
letter by Banwasi Seva ashram the Court started the proceedings under Article
32 of the Constitution. Adivasi people were protesting against their eviction
because of reservations of forest land by the State. These Adivasi people lived
in or near the forest for generations and enjoyed forest products such as fruits,
fodder, flowers, timber, animals and fuel wood. They alleged violation of their
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the forest dwellers were
asked to evict and restrain from enjoying forest products which they enjoyed for
generations. The Supreme Court passed an order restraining the State from
eviction of the forest dwellers pending investigation of their claim over the
forest. Meanwhile, the State Government informed the Court that it needed the
disputed forest land for NTPC for building a project for the generation of
electricity.
Held: The Court despite its earlier order preventing dispossession of occupants,
allowed acquisition of land as the Scheme for generating electricity was of
national importance. Indisputably forests are a much wanted national asset on
account of the depletion thereof ecology has been disturbed; climate has
undergone a major change and rains have become scanty. These have long-term
adverse effects on national economy as also on the living process. At the same
time, cannot lose sight of the fact that for industrial growth and also for
provision of improved living facilities there is great demand in this country for
energy such as electricity.
RIO CONVENTION
EARTH SUMMIT 1992

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED),
also known as Earth Summit was held at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992.
It put the world on a path of sustainable development, aimed at meeting the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. It was the largest environmental conference ever held,
attracting over 30,000 people including more than 100 heads of state.
The Earth Summit forced the people worldwide to rethink how their lives affect
natural environment and resources.
Some of the major achievements of Earth Summit lie in the form following
documents:
1. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
2. Agenda 21
3. Forest Principles
4. Conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity
For the first time, a major environmental conference adopted a more nature-
centered approach towards environmental problems. Together these outcomes
covered every aspect of sustainable development. Legislation was passed and
many agreements were made, committing nations, to become more sustainable.
These agreements and guidelines are still adhered to today and are influencing
many political and business decisions.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development builds upon the
basic ideas concerning the attitudes of individuals and nations towards the
environment and development.
The Rio Declaration states that long term economic progress is only ensured if
it is linked with the protection of the environment. If this is to be achieved, then
nations must establish a new global partnership involving governments, their
people and the key sectors of society. Together human society must assemble
international agreements that protect the global environment with responsible
development.
There are a number of principles to the Rio Declaration49:
49
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 visited on
21-04-2015 at 8.00 p.m.
Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable

development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with
nature.
Principle 2: States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction.
Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet

developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.
Principle 4: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental

protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and
cannot be considered in isolation from it.
Principle 5: All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of
eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable
development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and
better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.
Principle 6: The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly

the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given
special priority. International actions in the field of environment and
development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.
Principle 7: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve,

protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of
the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have
common but differentiated responsibilities.
Principle 8: To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for

all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of
production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.
Principle 9: States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building

for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through
exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the
development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new
and innovative technologies.
Principle 10: Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all
concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual
shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is
held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and
activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-
making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and
participation by making information widely available. Effective access to
judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be
provided.
Principle 11: States shall enact effective environmental legislation.

Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect
the environmental and development context to which they apply. Standards
applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic
and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.
Principle 12: States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open

international economic system that would lead to economic growth and
sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of
environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes
should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a
disguised restriction on international trade.
Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction
of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures
addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as
possible, be based on an international consensus.
Principle 13: States shall develop national law regarding liability and
compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.
States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to
develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for
adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their
jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.
Principle 14: States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the

relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause
severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health.
Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach

shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent

Principle 16: National authorities should endeavor to promote the

internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments,
taking into account the approach that the polluter should bear the cost of
pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting
international trade and investment.
Principle 17: Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall

be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse
impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national
authority.
Principle 18: States shall immediately notify other States of any natural
disasters or other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects
on the environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the
international community to help States so afflicted.
Principle 19: States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant
information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a
significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with
those States at an early stage and in good faith.
Principle 20: Women have a vital role in environmental management and

development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve
sustainable development.
Principle 21: The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should
be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable
development and ensure a better future for all.
Principle 22: Indigenous people and their communities and other local
communities have a vital role in environmental management and development
because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize
and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective
participation in the achievement of sustainable development.
Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people under

oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.
Principle 24: Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development.

States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the
environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further
development, as necessary.
Principle 25: Peace, development and environmental protection are

interdependent and indivisible.
Principle 26: States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and
by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Principle 27: States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of
partnership in the fulfillment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and
in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable
development.
Agenda 21
Agenda 21 is the blueprint for sustainability in the 21st century. Agenda 21 is a

commitment to sustainable development, which was agreed by many of the
world's governments. Nations that have pledged to take part in Agenda 21 are
monitored by the International Commission on Sustainable Development, and
are encouraged to promote Agenda 21 at the local and regional levels within
their own countries. Thus, Agenda 21 lays emphasis on international
cooperation for achieving the goal of sustainable development.
The Conventions, Principles and Declarations of the Earth Summit, provide
guidelines to deal with the problems of poverty, hunger, resource consumption
and the deterioration of ecosystems. Agenda 21 provides a format for this to
happen, detailing an action plan for sustainable development and establishing
targets for actions that combine economic development and environmental
protection50. Agenda 21:
Provides options for combating the deterioration of land, air and water,
whilst conserving habitats and their diversity.
Presently a nations wealth is gauged by its financial standing and the more
money the better. Agenda 21 promotes the attitude that a nations wealth should
also account for the full value of its natural resources. Agenda 21 also
encourages nations to consider the costs of environmental degradation. In
addition, to reduce the risk of damage, environmental assessments should be
carried out and where degradation does occur, those responsible should bear the
costs.
Deals with poverty, over consumption, health and education.
Agenda 21 highlights the need to eradicate poverty. One of the major problems
facing poorer nations is their lack of resources and ability to live sustainably.
Developed nations have taken on the responsibilities of assisting poorer nations
to reduce their environmental impacts and achieve sustainable development.
Promotes roles for everyone governments, business, trade unions,
scientists, teachers, and indigenous people and youth have roles to play
in achieving sustainable development and should be involved in the
decision making processes.
Agenda 21 asks governments to integrate sustainable development into their

national strategies and highlights the importance of involving non-governmental
50 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163
organizations (NGOs) and the public in the process. For sustainable

development to work, issues must be tackled on a local, national and
international level and nations must work towards international agreements
which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global
environmental and developmental system.
Encourages the reduction of environmentally and socially detrimental
processes, but within a framework which allows economic success.
Despite the very broad range of environmental and developmental issues

included in Agenda 21, it has been criticized for its failure to address the
inequitable international economic system, impacts of conflicts and militarism,
the crippling debt of many developing countries. Also in Agenda 21, there is
hardly any guidance on how its recommendations should actually be
implemented.
Forest Principles
One of the key agreements reached at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit was the
Principles of Forest Management. The Principles of Forest Management stated
that forests, with their complex ecology, are essential to economic development
and the maintenance of all forms of life.
Forests provide wood, food, and medicine and contain a biological diversity as
yet not fully uncovered. They also act as reservoirs for carbon dioxide, a
greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere by human processes, which may be
contributing towards global warming. As well as the scientific benefits of
forests, they also provide a home to wildlife and fulfill our cultural and spiritual
needs.
The Principles of Forest Management assert the right of nations to profit from
their own forest resources, but recommend that this should occur within a
framework of forest protection, management and conservation. The principles
are not legally binding but provide recommendations on sustainable practice.
The Principles of Forest Management include a number of points51:
All nations should take part in "the greening of the world" through
planting and conserving forests.
Forests should be managed in order to meet the social, economic,
ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations.
51
http://www.sustainable-environment.org.uk/Action/Forests.php visited on 21-04-2015 at 7.30 p.m.
Unique examples of forest should be protected, for example ancient

forests and forests with cultural, historical, spiritual and religious
importance.
Pollutants that harm forests should be controlled.
Forestry plans should consider the non-economic values of forests and the
environmental consequences of their management. Forest degradation
should be avoided.
Conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity
The world community at Rio Conference showed unanimity on two aspects i.e.
to prevent global climate change and eradication of biologically diverse species.
Two legally binding conventions were signed by the representatives of 154
countries.
I. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) was

adopted and signed by 162 countries in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit. With 26
Articles, consisting of objectives, principles, commitments and
recommendations, the FCCC became a blueprint for precautionary action
against the threat of global climate change.
The Convention on Climate Change entered into force on 21 st march, 1994. The
Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP) became the Conventions
ultimate authority52.
It highlighted the fact that human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, are
releasing large quantities of gases into the Earths atmosphere. These gases,
including carbon dioxide are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. There are
many concerns that the increase of such greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is
causing "global warming", which is threatening humans and natural ecosystems.
The aim of the Convention was to provide an international framework within
which future actions could be taken to reduce the threat of global warming. The
Convention indicates that participating nations have the right to exploit their
own resources, but they have a responsibility to ensure that their activities do
not cause any environmental harm to other nations.
The ultimate goal of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere at a level that will not pose undue risk to the global climate system.
Under the Convention, governments53:
52
P.S. Jaswal, Environmnetal Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 3 rd Edition, 2014 pg 104
53
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20
a) Gather and share information on green house gas emissions, national

policies and best practices.
b) Launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and
adapting to expected impacts.
c) Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
The COP Conferences have been held in all parts of the world. The first
conference was held at Berlin in 1995.
I. United Nations Convention on Biodiversity:
The biological diversity of the world the variability among living organisms
is valuable for ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational,
cultural and recreational reasons. Biodiversity plays an important role in
evolution and for maintaining the condition of life support systems within the
biosphere. If we are going to meet the food and health needs of a growing world
population, then it is widely recognized that we need to conserve and sustain
our biological diversity.
The Convention on Biological Diversity entered into international law in 1994
with 153 nations signing up. The convention is legally binding; countries that
join it are obliged to implement its provisions. It is an international treaty and
has three main goals:
i. Conservation of biological diversity
ii. Sustainable use of its components
iii. Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources
The Convention states that participating nations have rights over their biological
resources, allowing responsible and sustainable exploitation, but ensuring that
biological diversity is conserved.
India is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992. The Indian
Parliament has enacted the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The Act primarily
addresses the issue concerning access to genetic resources and associated
knowledge by foreign individuals, institutions, companies and equitable sharing
of benefits arising out of the use of these resources and knowledge to the
country and people.
It is proposed to have National Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity
Boards and Biodiversity Management Committees. It is also proposed to set up
Biodiversity Funds at Central, State and local levels.
EARTH SUMMIT + 5
As envisaged in Agenda 21, a special session of the UN General Assembly at
New York on environment was held in June, 1977 which is also known as Earth
Summit +5. It was supposed to find out how far the committed nations had
gone from Rio.
This special session is known as Earth Summit + 5 because it was after five
years from the historic Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, that the representatives
of various nations reviewed the progress they had made in achieving the goal of
sustainable development.
In the conference it was found that the planets oceans, forests and atmosphere
are still in trouble, and its population of poor people is growing. One of the
biggest disappointments was on global warming.
112 billion tons of carbon dioxide ( CO2)was released into the atmosphere in the
past five years. The other Rio agreements also suffered a similar fate. The
Biodiversity Convention was meant to ensure that the destruction of species was
slowed down and eventually halted but the estimates suggested a rising toll
owning to deforestation rate that rose from 11,000 sq. km. a year in 1991 to
15,000 sq. km. a year in 199554.
EARTH SUMMIT + 10
In 2002, ten years after the Rio Declaration, a follow-up conference, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was convened in Johannesburg
to renew the global commitment to sustainable development. The conference
agreed on the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and further tasked
the CSD to follow-up on the implementation of sustainable development.
EARTH SUMMIT + 20
The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development or Earth +20 took
place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 20-22 June 2012.
In Rio, Member States decided to launch a process to develop a set of
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will build upon the Millennium
Development Goals and converge with the post 2015 development agenda.
The Conference also adopted ground-breaking guidelines on green economy
policies.
Governments also decided to establish an intergovernmental process under the
General Assembly to prepare options on a strategy for sustainable development
financing.
54 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20
The Rio +20 Conference also galvanized the attention of thousands of

representatives of the UN system and major groups. It resulted in over 700
voluntary commitments and witnessed the formation of new partnerships to
advance sustainable development.
ROLE OF JUDICIARY:
Sustainable development is not a new concept; many cultures over the human
society realized the need for the harmony between environment, society and
economy. In this 21st Century what is new is the articulation of this concept of
global industrial and information society. Sustainable Development means
different things to different to different people, but in Brundtland Report it was
said that,
Sustainable Development is a development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
Sustainable development focuses on improving the quality standards of all

human being in the earth without compromising the excessive use of natural
resources beyond the capacity of the environment to supply them indefinitely; it
requires and understanding that, this action has its consequences and we must
find out innovative ways to change the institutional structures and individual
behavior, in other words its about taking action, changing policy and practice at
all levels from the individual to international.
Judiciary in India, more precisely, the Supreme Court and High Courts has
played an important role in preserving the doctrine of Sustainable
Development. Parliament has enacted various laws to deal with the problems
of environmental degradation. In such a situation, the superior courts have
played a pivotal role in interpreting those laws to suit the doctrine of '
Sustainable Development'.
It is worthwhile to mention here that principle 10 of Rio declaration, 1992 states

that:
"Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned
citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have
appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by
public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities
in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making
processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and
participation by making information widely available. Effective access to
judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be
provided."
There were various factors which led to and become the guiding factor to pass
various laws relating to environment by the Indian Parliament. These factors
cumulatively created an atmosphere to legislate on various aspects of

environment including the umbrella legislation - the Environment Protection
Act, 1986.
In June 1972, the First U.N (International) Conference on Human Environment

was held in Stockholm declared that:
to defend and improve the human environment for present and future
generations has become an imperative goal for mankind.
From the beginning of the attendance in the Stockholm Conference in 1072,
India has passed various major laws on environment, namely:
1. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,
2. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,
3. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
4. National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995,
5. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
The Supreme Court of India has also pointed out that the U.N. Conference on
Human Environment created awareness for environment Protection.6 The
concept of 'Sustainable Development, was also introduced for the first time by
the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and now a days this concept has been
accepted as a part of the Customary International Law.
It is also to be remembered that most of the environmental cases have come
before the court through PIL (public interest litigation) either under Article 32
or under Article 226 of the constitution.
The first case on which the apex court had applied the doctrine of ' Sustainable
Development' was Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs. Union of India. In the
instant case, dispute arose over some tanneries in the state of Tamil Nadu.
These tanneries were discharging effluents in the river Palar, which was the
main source of drinking water in the state .The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:
"We have no hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle and polluter
pays principle are part of the environmental law of India.
The court also held that: "Remediation of the damaged environment is part
of the process of 'Sustainable Development' and as such polluter is liable to
pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the
damaged ecology."
But before Vellore Citizen's case, the Supreme Court has in many cases tried to
keep the balance between ecology and development. In Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which was also
known as Doon valley case, dispute arose over mining in the hilly areas. The
Supreme Court after much investigation ordered the stopping of mining work.
In a landmark case Tarun Bhagat Singh vs. Union of India, the petitioner
through a PIL brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that the state
government of Rajasthan though empowered to make rules to protect
environment, failed to do so and in contrary allowed mining work to continue
within the forest area. Consequently, the Supreme Court issued directions that
no mining work or operation could be continued within the protected area.
In Dehradun Quarrys case the Supreme Court entertained complaints from

the rural litigation and entitlement Kendra, Dehradun alleging that the
operations of lime stone quarries in the Missouri-Dehradun region resulted in
degradation of the environment affecting the fragile ecosystems in the area. In
this case the Supreme Court moving under Article 32 ordered the closure of
some of these quarries on the ground that these were upsetting the ecological
balance.
The Supreme Court held in Virendra Gaur and others v State of Haryana55,
that Environmental, ecological, air, water pollution etc should be regarded as
amounting to violation of Article 21. Similarly, in the Vellore Citizens Welfare
Reform v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that tanneries had violated
citizens' right to life by discharging untreated effluents into agricultural areas
and local drinking water supplies, thereby severely polluting the drinking water.
It may be relevant to mention here that Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration of

1992 specifically provides for effective access to judicial and administrative
proceedings, including redress and remedy.
Thus the judiciary in India has played a very important role in the
environmental protection and has applied the principles of sustainable
development while deciding the cases. There are number of cases in this point
and, therefore, it will necessary to study and analyze a few important cases in
this area. It is also worthwhile to mention here that most of the environmental
cases have come before the Courts through Public Interest Litigations (PIL).
Hence, the Supreme Court of India, apart from being environmental friendly,
has given birth to a wide range of doctrines and principles have in turn been
adopted and implemented throughout the country.
55
1995
Conclusion:
Sustainable development is essentially a policy and a strategy for continued
economic and social development without detriment to the environment and
natural resources on the quality of which continued activity and further
development depend. So, while thinking of the development measures the need
of the present and the ability of the future to meet its own needs and
requirements have to be kept in view. While thinking of the present, the future
should not be forgotten.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bell, Stuart; Gillivray, Donald MC; Environmental Law; 5th Edition,

2004, Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi.
Jaswal, Dr. P.S.; Jaswal, Dr. Nishtha; Environmental Law; 3rd Edition,
2012; Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad.
Justice T S Doabia, Environmental & Pollution Laws in India, Wadhwa
& Cmpany Nagpur, New Delhi, 1st Edition, 2005, Volume-I
Negi, Dr. Vidya B.; Environmental Law- Issues & Concerns; Edition
2011; Regal Publication House, New Delhi.
WEBOGRAPHY
http://www.estig.ipbeja.pt/~ac_direito/PrecautionaryPrinciple.pdf
accessed on 22/3/2016 at 9 p.m.
http://www.elaw.in/environ/polluter/ accessed on 23/3/2016 at 11 p.m.
www.edo.org.au/.../david%20cole%20on%20precautionary%20principl
e.docx accessed on 23/3/2016 at 11:10 p.m.
http://www.jiarm.com/Jul/paper3292.pdf
http://www.sustainable-environment.org.uk/Action/Earth_Summit.php
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20
http://legal-articles.deysot.com/environmental-
law/%2525e2%252580%25259cpolluter pays%2525e2%252580%25259d-
principle-a-policy-principle.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/765435/environmental-
law/224613/The-precautionary-principle#toc224615
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/making-the-polluter-
pay#axzz2PIKaudlZ
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l54-Interpretation-of-Polluter-Pays-
Principle.html

Final El Project

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Final El Project

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sustainable Development

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Sabina Salim Divya bajaj (133/12)

U.I.L.S. Tania (145/12)

Pooja Bansal (207/12)

Sustainable development- Introduction

Principles of Sustainable development

Public Trust Principle

Compiled By Divya Bajaj (133/12)

Polluter Pays Principle

Protection of Natural Resources

Compiled by Pooja Bansal (207/12)

Rio Convention on Sustainable development

Compiled by Pooja (200/12)

Sustainable Development and Indian Judiciary

Compiled by Tania (145/12)

INTRODUCTION: Sustainable Development

This definition is, however, vague, and requires further elaboration.

The concept of sustainable development signifies a policy approach or goal

In Vellor Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India, it was observed that

SALIENT PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT2

I. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The Principle of Precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm

iii. The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show

The approach to environmental protection occurred initially between 1972 and

determination. If it is not possible to make a decision with 'some' confidence,

From the above observations it is clear that inadequacies of science is a real

In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India,13 the Court stressed

and hence there should be no difficulty in accepting them as part of our

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

DIFFICULTY IN ITS APPLICATION

The application of precautionary principle is not always very easy or in a

development activity by applying the principle of sustainable development, in

In M.C. Mehta vs. Kamalnath,16 upholding, it as a part of the environmental

It is to be noted that while the inadequacies of science have led to the

The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable of

It is also explained that if the environmental risks being run by regulatory

In such a situation, the burden of proof is to be placed on those attempting to

According to Meinhard Schroder,19 in interpreting the aims of sustainable

development, with the result that any further expansion of consumption is

Thus, once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the

In Research Foundation For Science (18) v. Union of India,22 the Supreme

It provides for taking protection against specific environmental hazards by

II. Polluter Pays Principle:

Many economists claim that much environmental harm is caused by producers

Accordingly, the purpose of many environmental regulations is to force

pollution to make cleaner products or to use cleaner technologies.24 The

The principle means-

The application of the polluter pays principle in 1989 was extended to

The polluter pays principle is essentially a principle directed to the

INDIAN JUDICIARY AND POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

Further, the Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority

FLAWS IN THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

polluter pays principle is neither absolute nor obligatory.42 Legal theorists

III. Protection of Natural Resources:

The protection of environment is an essential part of sustainable development.

Deforestation causes ecological imbalances and leads to environmental

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P, 45 justice

2. PROTECTION OF WILD LIFE

In Pradeep Krishen vs. Union of India47, the petitioner, an environmentalist

The court referred an Action Plan for prevention of Environment, Government

4. PROTECTION OF COASTAL REGIONS

and beneficial species. This book presents information helpful to tropical