SANKHADEEP BARMAN

A90821519070
BBA. LL.B. (H)
SECTION B
HUMAN VALUES AND OUTREACH
SW102
SEMESTER – 9
AMITY UNIVERSITY KOLKATA
 Table of Cases
Names of the Cases Page Number
A

Anuj Joshi & Anr. vs Union of India, AIR 2012 Uttarakhand 24………………………………….

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446…………………..

M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath, (2000) 4 SCC 213……………………………………………………

M.C. Mehta vs Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086………………………………………………..

M.C. Mehta vs Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353…………………………………………………

Research Foundation for Science (18) vs Union of India & Anr.,

(2005) 13 SCC 186…………………………………………………………………………………

Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647…………………………..

Polluter Pays Principle in India
Polluter Pays Principle is an accepted international customary law. India is country where both
Statutory as well as Common Law System prevails. In India, this principle has not been adopted
expressly in any statute but has been adopted in the essence in the penalties imposed upon the
Offenders by the Statutes. It has gained the position of a Customary Law through the Common
Law system. There have been several cases where the Polluter Pays Principle has been applied
by the Courts.

As per this principle, the Government of a Country is not supposed to pay for the damages
caused and the restoration costs but the offender must do so.

Polluter Pays Principle Under Common Law System in India

Under the Common Law System, the laws declared by the Courts are held to be laws having
equivalent or sometimes a superior position to Statutes. The following are some of the cases
where Polluter Pays Principle has been invoked for putting liability on the offender:

Anuj Joshi & Anr. vs Union of India1

In May, 1985, a hydro-electric power project at river Alaknanda was granted clearance by the
Ministry of Environment and Forest. At that point of time, the capacity of the project had been
measured at 200 MWT and thereafter on the basis of such information, the clearance was
granted. Later on, when the detailed project was submitted, the capacity of the project turned out
to be 330 MWT for which the state Electricity Board had accorded approval. Thereafter, without
seeking further clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the appellants had
started the construction against which numerous petitions had been filed. Consequently, the
appellants asked for clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest which was denied
by the Ministry on the grounds that the land being a forest land required the clearance from the
Forest Department and subsequently, the appellants made an appeal to the Uttarakhand High
court directing the Ministry to decide on the situation at a public hearing.

The Court, however, held that in case the appellants were not granted the clearance, they would
be liable as per the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ and the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Also, they would
be liable for any loss to the property and would have to restore the property and all costs
following such restoration would be bore by the appellants.

1
AIR 2012 Uttarakhand 24.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India2
In this case, certain Industrial Units located at the Bichhari village in Rajasthan were carrying on
their business without getting appropriate clearances from the appropriate authorities.
Consequent to the carrying of the business by these industries, the certain chemicals like Oleum
which were a concentrated form of Sulphuric Acid and H-Acid, were being discharged. These
units had not obtained the necessary permits nor had the required equipment for the purpose
treating and discharging the wastes thereby. As a result, the discharged chemicals penetrated the
soil and polluted the ground water making it unfit for Human Consumption and rendering the
soil unusable for cultivation.

The Supreme Court of India held that following the polluter pays principle and keeping in mind
the objective of sustainable development, the Industrial Units shall have to pay a compensation
for the damage caused and also pay whatever amount be required for the purpose of restoring the
environment of the particular area.

M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath3

In this case, a company named Spon Motels Ltd. illegally acquired a huge property including
forest land in Kullu and Manali, Himachal Pradesh. The then Forest Minister Mr. Kamal Nath
had family connections with this company and thereby granted a lease on all those lands
acquired by the company. For the construction of the resorts, the use of bulldozers changed the
flow of the river Beas and thereafter a PIL was filed before the Supreme Court of India.

The Hon’ble Court held that the company was liable for its actions and applying the Polluter
Pays principle, the company must compensate the people since the river was a Natural Resource.
The Doctrine of Public trust was also applied in this case. Also applying the Polluter Pays
Principle, the Hon’ble Court ordered the respondents to pay whatever may be required for the
purpose of restoring the environment of that area.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India4

Popularly known as the ‘Bhopal Gas Tragedy’, this case applies some of the major principles of
Environmental Protection and Restoration. In this case, a chemical known as Methyl Isocyanate
was leaked through a pipeline of Union Carbide India Ltd.’s factory at Bhopal causing huge
number of deaths and damage to the nearby ecosystem. This happened due to the negligence of
the people of the firm.

The Supreme Court of India held that the accused be imprisoned and also be liable to pay fine.
This could, however, not be implemented as the CEO of Union Carbide India Ltd., Warren

2
AIR 1996 SC 1446.
3
(2000) 4 SCC 213.
4
AIR 1987 SC 1086.
Anderson had absconded to the US and his extradition Proceedings remained unsuccessful on the
grounds that Union Carbide India Ltd. was an Indian firm.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India5

[This case is popularly known as the ‘Taj Trapezium Zone Case (TTZ)’. Taj Trapezium refers to
an area of 10,400 sq. km. trapezium shaped area around Taj Mahal covering five districts in the
region of Agra. The writ petition was attached with the report of the Expert Committee called
“Report on Environmental Impact of Mathura Refinery” (Varadharajan Committee) published
by the Government of India in 1978. The report indicated the sources of pollution in the Taj
Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

The Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, New Delhi, published its
report on (Control of Urban Pollution Series) titled as “Inventory and Assessment of Pollution
Emission in and Around Agra-Mathura Region”. It categorized the industries in Agra and its
outskirts into seven different categories. They gave some statistics about the pollution levels and
they were quite high. And said that by closing down two thermal power stations and replacing
coal by diesel in the railway yards Sulphur dioxide emissions can be cut down by 50%.

On 8th January, 1993, the Supreme Court after hearing M.C. Mehta and taking cognizance of
the report on the ‘Control of Urban Pollution’ by the Central Pollution Control Board reached
to the conclusion that the main sources of pollution are iron foundries, ferro-alloyed industries,
rubber processing, lime processing, engineering, chemical industry, brick refractory and
vehicles. The Court further directed the U.P. Pollution Control Board (U.P.P.C.B.) to get a
survey done of the area and prepare a list of all the industries and foundries which are the
sources of pollution in the area. The court directed the U.P.P.C.B. to issue notices to all the
foundries and industries in that region to satisfy the Board that necessary anti-pollution
measures have been undertaken by the said industries/foundries.]6

Research Foundation for Science (18) vs Union of India & Anr.7

[In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India defined the Polluter Pays Principle. According
to the court, the principle means that the producer of some goods or other items should be
responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution that the manufacturing
process causes. This also includes the environmental costs incurred in avoiding pollution. The
nature and extent of cost shall, however, differ from case to case depending upon the
circumstances of each case.]8

5
(1997) 2 SCC 353.
6
http://lawtimesjournal.in/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-1986-taj-trapezium-case-case-summary/.
7
(2005) 13 SCC 186.
8
Environmental Law, Dr. Paranjape N.V., 2nd Edition, 2016, at p. 93.
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India9
[In this case, the Apex Court ordered the Central Government to constitute a body under Section
3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and confer on this authority such powers necessary
to deal with the situation created by the tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The authority so
formed must also implement the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle.] 10

Polluter Pays Principle Under Statutory Laws in India

There are several Acts pertaining to Environmental Protection in India. Some Acts have been
passed by the Parliament of India to adhere to the obligations imposed upon India as a
consequence of being a signatory to some of the International Conferences held throughout the
globe for the purpose of Environmental Protection. There has been incorporated, many principles
and concepts on the basis of which the Judiciary is to provide justice to all the citizens of the
country on matters relating to Environmental Pollution and Degradation because of the
subsequent effects of pollution and degradation of environment on the citizens of the country
because of the fault of, or the omission of a duty of a person or industry or some other entity
towards the affected citizens of the country.

Almost all the Acts pertaining to Environmental Pollution and its degradation contain penalties
in the form of both Imprisonment and Fine. Some Acts like the Public Liability Insurance Act,
1991, impose a no-fault-liability upon the owner or the user of hazardous goods as defined under
the Acts therein. The Acts that implement the Polluter Pays Principle are:

1. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

2. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
3. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
4. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
5. Indian Forest Act, 1927 [As Amended by the Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 2017].
6. Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.

9
(1996) 5 SCC 647.
10
Environmental Law, Dr. Paranjape N.V., 2nd Edition, 2016, at p. 94.
Differences between the India and United States of America in regards
to Polluter Pays Principle

Sl.
Basis of Comparison India United States of America
No.
All the Acts passed implement Several Acts have been
Implementation
this principle in the country. passed to implement the
1 through statutory
principle.
laws
Indirect Taxes as well as Direct Direct Taxes like Gas Guzzler
Form of Taxation for
2 Taxes to be paid by the Tax.
pollution
Offender, as the case may be.
Extremely simple and most Very complex system for
penalties like Carbon Tax are each type of pollution caused
Complexity of penalty
3 very simple to pay. as well as the source of
imposing System
pollution.

Different Standards are set for Many standards are set to

Water and Air Pollution. Other which each polluter or
4 Setting of Standards forms of Pollution are covered offender must adhere to.
under the term ‘Environmental
Pollution’.
Limitations are in the form that The polluter pays principle
the Offenders take shelter of has not been fully
Limitations in the malpractices to avoid the implemented in the US laws
5 implementation of liability they might otherwise pertaining to certain objects
the principle have. like drinking water and
sewage treatment services.
There are a few subsidies like Drinking Water and Sewage
the Carbon Credit Units Trading Treatment Services are
6 Subsidies
System. subsidized.

The Judiciary has taken serious The steps taken are serious
steps for the implementation of but not to that extent.
7 Role of Judiciary
this principle.
Bibliography
1. Environmental Law, Dr. Paranjape N.V., 2nd Edition, 2016.
2. https://www.legalbites.in/polluter-pays-principle-economic-legal.
3. https://indiankanoon.org.
4. https://www.latestlaws.com.
5. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
6. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
7. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
8. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
9. Indian Forest Act, 1927 [As Amended by the Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 2017].
10. Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.