Mod 1 Enviornment
Mod 1 Enviornment
Mod 1 Enviornment
Ancient Period
In ancient India, religious and cultural traditions placed significant importance on nature.
Indian scriptures such as the Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas conveyed a deep reverence
for natural elements, advocating for the protection of nature. This traditional ecological
ethos encouraged practices such as tree worship and reverence for rivers and mountains,
promoting environmental conservation.
The Rigveda celebrated rivers as life-sustaining forces, emphasizing their importance
in sustaining life.
The Arthashastra, written by Kautilya, prescribed penalties for harming forests or
animals, illustrating early forms of environmental regulation.
Medieval Period
The medieval period continued the tradition of environmental conservation. Notable rulers,
such as Ashoka, actively promoted the protection of flora, fauna, and natural resources. The
Mughal emperors, especially Akbar and Shah Jahan, undertook large-scale afforestation
projects and regulated resource use to ensure that the environment was preserved for
future generations.
Colonial Period
Under British rule, environmental governance took a turn as the colonial administration
primarily focused on exploiting India's natural resources for economic gain, disregarding
traditional conservation practices. During this period, laws were enacted that sought to
control and regulate natural resources but with an economic agenda.
Indian Forest Act, 1878: This act restricted community access to forests and
prioritized timber production for British industries, leading to environmental
degradation.
Factories Act, 1948: While not specifically focused on environmental protection, this
act addressed industrial waste and worker safety, indirectly influencing
environmental health by regulating factory emissions and waste disposal.
Post-Independence Period
After India gained independence in 1947, environmental concerns became more prominent
in the nation's policy and legal framework. There was a growing realization that the
country's economic development could not be sustained without safeguarding its
environmental resources.
Key legislative developments in post-independence India include:
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: This law aimed to protect wildlife and their habitats,
marking the beginning of a more structured approach to environmental law in India.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This act established Pollution
Control Boards for water quality management and created a legal framework for
managing water pollution.
Forest Conservation Act, 1980: The Act was a response to concerns over the
rampant deforestation occurring at the time. It regulated deforestation and aimed to
preserve forest cover.
Environment Protection Act, 1986: Enacted following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, this
act serves as an umbrella legislation for managing environmental pollution and
safeguarding public health.
Constitutional Amendments
The Indian Constitution was amended in 1976 to include environmental protection
provisions. The 42nd Amendment added two important Articles:
Article 48A: This article mandates the state to protect and improve the environment
and to safeguard forests and wildlife.
Article 51A(g): This article imposes a fundamental duty on Indian citizens to protect
and improve the environment.
Judicial Developments
The Indian judiciary has been proactive in shaping environmental law. In several landmark
cases, Indian courts have expanded the scope of environmental protections. Some
significant rulings include:
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985): This case
involved the banning of limestone mining in the Dehradun Valley to prevent
environmental degradation.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): This case introduced the concept of sustainable
development into Indian law, further cementing the relationship between economic
growth and environmental preservation.
Early Developments
The early foundations of international environmental law were laid in the 20th century with
agreements focused on specific environmental issues:
Trail Smelter Arbitration (1938-41): This case established the principle that states are
responsible for preventing environmental harm to other states, specifically
addressing transboundary pollution.
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946): This convention was
designed to conserve whale populations, marking one of the first international
efforts to regulate natural resource use.
Recent Milestones
Rio Earth Summit (1992): The Earth Summit resulted in the Rio Declaration and
Agenda 21, which promoted the concept of sustainable development and led to the
adoption of international conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Kyoto Protocol (1997): The Kyoto Protocol set binding targets for developed
countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, marking a significant step in global
efforts to mitigate climate change.
Paris Agreement (2015): The Paris Agreement seeks to limit global warming to below
2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, with countries committing to nationally
determined climate goals.
Judicial Contributions The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has adjudicated several key
environmental disputes, including the Nuclear Tests Case (1974), in which the ICJ ruled that
states have an obligation to prevent environmental harm to other states.
Strict Liability
Strict liability is a legal principle that holds individuals or entities liable for harm caused by
their actions, regardless of fault, negligence, or intent. It applies in cases where the
defendant is engaged in inherently hazardous or dangerous activities that could lead to
significant environmental damage. Under strict liability, the focus is on the risk posed by the
activity itself, and the defendant is held responsible for the damage, even if they took
reasonable precautions to prevent harm.
The Rylands v. Fletcher case (1868) in English law laid the foundation for the principle of
strict liability. The case involved the escape of water from a reservoir constructed by the
defendant, which caused damage to a neighboring mine. The court held the defendant liable
for the damage caused by the escape of water, establishing that a person who brings or
keeps something onto their land that could cause harm if it escapes must be held strictly
responsible for any resulting damage.
In India, the principle of strict liability was first applied in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India (1987), which involved the gas leak disaster at the Union Carbide plant in
Bhopal. The Indian Supreme Court applied the strict liability principle to hold Union Carbide
responsible for the extensive environmental and human damage caused by the leak. The
Court ruled that industries engaged in hazardous activities must take full responsibility for
any damage caused by those activities, regardless of fault or negligence.
While strict liability ensures that entities are held accountable for their actions, it allows for
certain defenses, such as the occurrence of an act of God or unavoidable accidents. This
limitation prompted the development of the more stringent principle of absolute liability.
Absolute Liability
Absolute liability is a more rigid and comprehensive form of liability than strict liability.
Under this principle, an individual or entity is held fully accountable for environmental
damage without any exceptions or defenses. Even if the harm results from unforeseen
events or circumstances beyond the control of the defendant, the defendant will still be
liable. This principle emerged in response to concerns that the exceptions in strict liability
could allow industries to avoid responsibility for catastrophic environmental damage.
The principle of absolute liability was formally introduced in India in the case of M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India (1987), where the Supreme Court dealt with the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The
Court expanded on the concept of strict liability and ruled that when an enterprise engages
in hazardous or dangerous activities, it must bear full responsibility for any resulting harm.
The Court removed the possibility of defenses such as "act of God," ensuring that the
defendant would be fully liable for environmental damage caused by their activities.
The Court's ruling in this case marked a significant shift in Indian environmental law, focusing
on the need for industries to adopt stringent safety measures and bear the full cost of any
harm they cause. It emphasized that the primary concern should be the protection of public
health and the environment, rather than the defense of corporate interests.
The principle of absolute liability has since been applied in various cases where hazardous
activities have led to environmental disasters. For example, in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
(1997), the Supreme Court applied absolute liability to hold a resort responsible for
environmental damage caused by illegal encroachments along the Beas River. In this case,
the Court emphasized that those who engage in activities that harm the environment must
bear the costs of restoration, even if no negligence was involved.
Judicial Contributions
The judicial pronouncements in the cases of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) and M.C.
Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) are pivotal in the development of the doctrines of strict and
absolute liability. These cases have expanded the scope of liability and reinforced the
importance of environmental protection in legal decision-making. The Indian judiciary has
consistently reinforced the need for industries to be accountable for environmental harm
and for the victims of such harm to receive compensation.
of the key aspects of these decisions is the shift from fault-based liability to strict and
absolute liability, which focuses on the nature of the activity rather than the intent or
negligence of the defendant. This has provided a more effective legal framework for dealing
with environmental harm caused by industries engaged in dangerous activities, ensuring
that environmental protection takes precedence.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court further advanced the
application of the polluter pays principle, which mandates that the polluter bears the cost of
environmental damage. This principle aligns with the concepts of strict and absolute liability,
ensuring that industries responsible for environmental harm are financially liable for
remediation and compensation.