Project Work

On
Evolution of Environmental laws in India

Submitted by : Asma
GU16R0034
BALLB, 3rd year

Submitted to: Professor Abhijit Anand

 Table of cases

 K.M. Chinappa v. Union of India, 30 October, 2002

 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819

 Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka, 1995 SCC (1) 574, JT 1994
(6) 588

 Rura Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, JT 1988

(3) SC 787

 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598

 Ratlam Municipality v. Vardicharan, 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97

 Sher Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh,30 October, 2017

 State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab, 26 October, 2005

 State of West Bengal and Ors v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129

 Narmada Bachao v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664

 Content
 Constitutional provisions
1) Article 14- Protection of the Environment
2) Article 19(1)(g)- to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation,trade or business
3) Article 21- Right to life and personal liberty
4) Article 48A- Protection and improvement of environment and
safeguarding of forests and wildlife
5) Article 51- Promotion of international peace and security
6) Article 51A- Fundamental duties
7) Article 253- Parliament has power to make any law for implementing
treaty with any country

 Landmark case on Environment

 Evolution of Environmental laws in India

 Water and environmental laws
1) Water ( Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974
2) Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988
 Control of Air Pollution and law
1) Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
 Forest and Wildlife laws
1) The Wildlife ( Protection) Act, 1972
2) The forest ( Conservation) Act, 1980

 General laws for Protection of Environment

 Environment Protection Act, 1986
 Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
 National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995
 The Biological Diversity Act, 2002
 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011

 Conclusion
 Bibliography
 Introduction
Environmental protection is a practice of protecting the natural environment at individual,
organisational or governmental levels, for the benefit of the natural environment and humans.
Due to the pressures of population and technology, the biophysical environment is being
degraded, either partially or permanently. This has been recognized and governments have
begun placing restrains on activities that cause environmental degradation. Since the 1960s,
movements for the protection of environment have created awareness about the various
environmental issues.

The honorable Supreme Court in K.M.Chinappa v. Union of India1, said “ Environmental Law”
as an instrument to protect and improve the environment and control on prevent any act or
omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment.

The Indian Constitution contains specific provisions for environment protection under the
chapters of Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties. The absence of the
recognizing the fundamental right to clean and wholesome environment has been set off by
judicial activism in the recent times.

Initially,the Constitution of India had no direct provision for environmental protection.Global

conciousness for the protection of the environment in the seventies, Stockholm Conference
and increasing awareness of the environmental crisis prompted the Indian government to enact
42nd amendment to the Constitution in 1976. The Constitution was amended to introduce direct
provisions for protection of environment. This 42nd amendment added Article 48A to the
Directive Principles of State Policy.
The Constitution of India has made a double provision:

(i) A directive to the State for protection and improvement of environment

(ii) Imposing on every citizen in the form of fundamental duty to help in the preservation
of natural environment. This is the testimony of government's awareness of a problem
of worldwide concern. Since protection of environment is now a fundamental duty of
every citizen, it is natural that every individual should do it as personal obligations,
merely by regulating the mode of his natural life.

1
30 October, 2002
 Constitutional provisions
Article 14. Protection of the Environment
KAMAL NATH CASE: M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath2
In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Span motel, owned by the family members of Shri Kamal Nath,
Minister for Environment and Forests, Govt. of India diverted the Course of river Beas to beautify
the motel and also encroached upon some forest land. The apex court ordered the management of
the Span motel to hand over forest land to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and remove all sorts of
encroachments.

The Court delivered a land mark judgment and established principle of exemplary damages for the
first time in India. The Court said that polluter must pay to reverse the damage caused by his act
and imposed a fine of Rs Ten Lakhs (Rs 10,00,000) on the Span motel as exemplary damages. The
Supreme Court of India recognized Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.
Protecting the environment OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India3

M C MEHTA, who was single-handedly responsible for making environmental degradation a part
of public discourse, says it is vital that PILs have no ulterior motive“GAS HAS leaked. The gas is
travelling. I am worried about your lordship’s life”. Environmental lawyer Mahesh Chander Mehta
relives what he told the Chief Justice of India

P.N. Bhagwati on December 4th, 1985. Oleum gas had just leaked from the Shriram Chlorine plant
in Najafgarh, and Delhi had panicked.By a strange coincidence, M.C. Mehta had filed a public
interest litigation against the Chlorine plant a month earlier (before the gas leak), and was
scheduled to argue another case before the Chief Justice of India on December 4th. When the
matter came up, Mehta referred to the Oleum gas that had leaked just three hours earlier. “The gas
leaked at 11 am; the case was listed and heard at 2 pm; the court immediately issued a notice”
gushes Mehta. “No case has been heard this quickly”. Nor perhaps judged so decisively. In siding
with Mehta, the Supreme Court punished the company heavily; the entire complex eventually shut
down. More far reaching, the Supreme Court created the `absolute liability principle’ — companies
engaged in inherently hazardous activities had absolutely no excuse when an accident occurred.

JUDGMENT
The court held that any enterprise that is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity is `absolutely’
liable to compensate all those affected by an accident. They key feature of the judgment was the
principle of `absolute liability’, in which no exceptions (such as an `act of God’) are brooked.

IMPACT

2
(1997) 1 SCC 388.
3
(1987) SCR (1) 819.
The case took place soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and was keenly watched as an instance of
how the courts would deal with companies responsible for environmental disasters. Unfortunately,
the complex court litigation around the Bhopal Gas Tragedy was an example of what not to do in
such cases.

Article 19(1)(g)
(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State of Karnataka4

Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) spells out a fundamental right of the citizens to practise
any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business so long as it is not prohibited or is
within the framework of the regulation, if any, if such prohibition or regulation has been imposed
by the State by enacting a law in the interests of the general public. It cannot be disputed that
certain professions, occupations, trades or businesses which are not in the interests of the general
public may be completely prohibited while others may be permitted with reasonable restrictions
on them. For the same purpose, viz., to subserve the interests of general public, the reasonable
restrictions on the carrying on of any profession, occupation, trade, etc., may provide that such
trade, business etc., may be carried on exclusively by the State or by a Corporation owned or
controlled by it. The right conferred upon the citizens under Article 19(1)(g) is thus subject to the
complete or partial prohibition or to regulation, by the State. However, under the provisions of
Article 19(6) the prohibition, partial or complete, or the regulation, has to be in the interests of the
general public.

The right given by this article to freely carry on trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the
territory of India is undisputedly subject to the same restrictions as is the right under
Article19(1)(g).
Apart from the restrictions placed on the right under Article 301, by the provisions of Articles
19(6), 47, 302 and 303, the provisions of Article 304 also place such restrictions on the said right.
So do the provisions of Article 305, so far as they protect existing laws and laws creating State
monopolies. The provisions of the aforesaid articles, so far as they are relevant for our purpose,
read together, therefore, make the position clear that the right conferred by Article19(1)(g) is not
absolute. It is subject to restrictions imposed by the other provisions of the Constitution. Those
provisions are contained in Articles 19(6), 47, 302, 303, 304 and 305.

ARTICLE 21
Article 21. Right to life and personal liberty. It states that “no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

4
1995 SCC (1) 574, JT 1994 (6) 588.
In Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v State of UP5, also known as the Dehradun quarrying case,
the Supreme Court of India has held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affects the health
and safety of people and hence, the same should be stopped as being violative of Article 21.In this
case, the Supreme Court for the first time held that the right to wholesome environment is a part
of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Further, in the case of Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar6, again the apex court held that the right to
get pollution free water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21. Following this decision,
the right to pollution free environment was incorporated under the head of right to life and all the
law courts within the Indian territory were bound to follow the same. This laid down the foundation
of environmental litigation in India.

Similarly, public health and ecology were held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the
constitution of a green bench was also ordered by the Supreme Court.

In the case of Ratlam Muncipality v Vardicharan7, where the problem of pollution was due to
private polluters and haphazard town planning, it was held by the Supreme Court that pollution
free environment is an integral part of right to life under Article 21.

Directive Principles of State Policy

Article 48(A)
48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country.
Sher Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 February, 2014

The citizens of the country have a fundamental right to a wholesome, clean and decent
environment. The Constitution of India, in terms of Article 48A, mandates that the State is under
a Constitutional obligation to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and
wild life in the country. By 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, the Parliament, with an object
of sensitizing the citizens of their duty, incorporated Article 51A in the Constitution, inter alia,
requiring a citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes,
rivers and wild life and to have a compassion for living creatures. The legislative intent and spirit
under Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution find their place in the definition of 'environment'
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act of 1986'). The legislature enacted
various laws like the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and other

5
JT 1988 (3) SC 787
6
(1991) 1 SCC 598
7
1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
legislations with the primary object of giving wide dimensions to the laws relating to protection
and improvement of environment. It is true that Part III of the Constitution relating to Fundamental
Rights does not specifically devote any Article to the Environment or protection thereof per se.
However, with the development of law and hipronouncement of judgments by the Supreme Court
of India, Article 21 of the Constitution has been expanded to take within its ambit the right to a
clean and decent environment.

Not only this, there is still a greater obligation upon the Centre, State and the Shrine Board in terms
of Article 48A of the Constitution where it is required to protect and improve the environment.
Article 25(2) of the UDHR ensures right to standard of adequate living for health and well-being
of an individual including housing and medical care and the right to security in the event of
sickness, disability etc. The expression 'life' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution does not
connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning
which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace
and leisure. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer
facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life
would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned. In the case of Consumer
Education & Research Centre (supra), the Court discussing the case of C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhash
Chandra Bose8 , stated with approval that in that case the Court had considered the gamut of
operational efficacy of human rights and constitutional rights, the right to medical aid and health
and held the right to social justice as a fundamental right. The Court further stated that the facilities
for medical care and health to prevent sickness, ensure stable manpower for economic
development and generate devotion to duty and dedication to give the workers' best performance,
physically as well as mentally. The Court particularly, while referring to the workmen made
reference to Articles 21, 39(e), 41, 43 and 48-A of the Constitution of India to substantiate that
social security, just and humane conditions of work and leisure to workmen are part of his
meaningful right to life.

Article 51. Promotion of international peace and security :

 The State shall endeavour to promote international peace and security;

 maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
 foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
peoples with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration
PART IVA FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES.
State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab9

By enacting clause (g) in Article 51-A and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the
objects sought to be achieved by the Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message ofArticles

8
(1992) 1 SCC 441
9
26 October, 2005
48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. The Parliament availed the
opportunity provided by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 to improve the
manifestation of objects contained in Article 48 and 48-A. While Article 48-A speaks of
"environment", Article 51-A(g) employs the expression "the natural environment" and includes
therein "forests, lakes, rivers and wild life". While Article 48 provides for "cows and calves and
other milch and draught cattle", Article 51-A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every citizen
"to have compassion for living creatures", which in its wider fold embraces the category of cattle
spoken of specifically in Article 48.

In State of W.B. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana10, Articles 48 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution were
read together and this Court expressed that these provisions have to be kept in mind while
interpreting statutory provisions.

One of the other reasons which has been advanced for reversal of earlier judgments was that at the
time when these earlier judgments were delivered Article 48(A) and 51(A) were not there and
impact of both these Articles were not considered. It is true that Article 48(A) which was
introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 with effect from 3.1.1977 and
Article51(A) i.e. fundamental duties were also brought about by the same amendment. Though,
these Articles were not in existence at that time but the effect of those Articles were indirectly
considered in the Mohd. Hanif Qureshi's case in 1958. It was mentioned that cow dung.

Article 51(A). Fundamental Duty

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India

(i) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag and
the National Anthem;
(ii) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(iii) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(iv) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(v) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of
India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce
practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(vi) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(vii) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild
life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
(viii) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(ix) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(x) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that
the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement PART V

10
(2004) 4 SCC 129
 THE UNION CHAPTER I THE EXECUTIVE The President and Vice President.

Article 253
Legislation for giving effect to international agreements notwithstanding anything in the foregoing
provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the
territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any othercountry or
countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.

Landmark case on environment

Chipko movement
In the 1970s, an organized resistance to the destruction of forests spread throughout India and came
to be known as the Chipko Movement. The villagers hugged the trees, and prevented the
contractors from felling them.

In the 20th century,it began in the hills where the forests are the main source of livelihood,since
agricultural activities cannot be carried out easily. The first Chipko action took place
spontaneously in April 1973 in the village of Mandal and over the next 5 years spread to many
districts of the Himalayas in Uttar Pradesh.

The success achieved by this protest led to similar protest in other parts of the country. From their
origins as a spontaneous protest against logging abuses in Uttar Pradesh in the Himalayas
supporters of the Chipko Movement, mainly village women, have successfully banned the felling
of trees in a number of regions and influenced natural resource in India.
The Chipko protests in Uttar Pradesh achieved a major victory in 1980 with a 15 year ban on green
felling in the Himalaya forests of that state by the order of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Since then, the
movement has spread to many states in the country.

Narmada Bachao movement

Narmada Bachao v. Union of India11

Way back in 1946, the then government of the Central Provinces and Berar and the then
government of Bombay requested the Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission
to take up investigation on the Narmada river system for basin wise development of the river with
flood control,irrigation, power and extension of Navigation as the objectives in view. The Project
was inaugurated by the then Prime Minister Shri. Jawaharlal Nehru on 5th April 1961. Thereafter
due to certain difference of opinion between the riparian States, the matter was referred to a
tribunal in 1968 constituted under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Based on the

11
(2000) 10 SCC 664
agreement between the Chief Ministers of 4 States [M.P, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat] the
tribunal declared is award on 16th August 1978. In order to meet the financial obligation,
consultations started in 1978 with the World Bank for obtaining a loan. In May 1985 the loan was
sanctioned, and in 1987 the Ministry of Environment and Forest accorded Environmental
Clearance subject to certain conditions.

The petitioners challenged implementation of Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) on several grounds:
Environmental clearance was given without application of mind, the height of the dam as planned
at full reservoir level (FRL) of 455 feet would submerge a vast region under water, oustees would
not be suitably rehabilitated and the changes in situation would lead to violation of fundamental
rights under article 21.
The Supreme Court by a majority decision was reluctant to review the appropriateness of
constructing large dams. Environmental clearance for construction was given with conditions for
massive rehabilitation. The court held that whether to have an infrastructural project or not is a
policy decision. The type of project to be undertaken and the manner in which it has to be executed
are also in the domain of policy making process. Courts are ill equipped to adjudicate on these
questions although they have a duty to see that in the implementation of a decision no law is
violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible
under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be made before the
execution of the project is undertaken.A considered decision by a responsible democratic
government cannot be said to be contrary to the public interest. For providing water to drought-
prone zones construction of the dam is the only decision the government could take. The ecology
of water scarcity areas is under stress and transfer of Narmada water to these areas will lead to
sustainable agriculture and spread of green cover. There will also be improvement of fodder
availability, which will reduce pressure on bio-diversity and vegetation. The SSP by generating
clean eco-friendly hydropower will save the air pollution which would otherwise take place by
thermal general power of similar capacity.

The Court observed that poverty of the biggest threat to environment and unless people are
provided with water and other development amenities, the environment will be exploited to a larger
extent.

Following the above analysis the Court thought it unfit to interfere with the construction of the
dam, as its advantages over took its disadvantages. The construction of the dam was allowed
subject to certain conditions.

Evolution of Environmental laws in India

Water and Environmental Laws:
Water quality standards especially those for drinking water are set by the Indian Council of
Medical Research. These bear close resemblance to WHO standards. The discharge of industrial
effluents is regulated by the Indian Standard Codes and recently, water quality standards for coastal
water marine outfalls have also been specified. In addition to the general standards, certain specific
standards have been developed for effluent discharges from industries such as, iron and steel,
aluminum, pulp and paper, oil refineries, petrochemicals and thermal power plants.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

This Act represented India first attempts to comprehensively deal with environmental issues. The
Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into water bodies beyond a given standard, and lays down
penalties for non-compliance. The Act was amended in 1988 to conform closely to the provisions
of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It set up the CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board)
which lays down standards for the prevention and control of water pollution. At the State level,
the SPCBs (State Pollution Control Board) function under the direction of the CPCB and the state
government.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amended Act, 1988

This Act provides for a levy and collection of a Amended on water consumed by industries and
local authorities. It aims at augmenting the resources of the central and state boards for prevention
and control of water pollution. Following this Act, The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Amended Ruleswere formulated in 1978 for defining standards and indications for the
kind of and location of meters that very consumer of water is required to install.

Control of Air Pollution and the Law

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
To counter the problems associated with air pollution, ambient air quality standards were
established, under the 1981 Act. The Act provides means for the control and abatement of air
pollution. The Act seeks to combat air pollution by prohibiting the use of polluting fuels and
substances, as well as by regulating appliances that give rise to air pollution. Under the Act
establishing or operating of any industrial plant in the pollution control area requires consent from
state boards. The boards are also expected to test the air in air pollution control areas, inspect
pollution control equipment, and manufacturing processes.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major pollutants were notified by the
CPCB in April 1994. These are deemed to be levels of air quality necessary with an adequate
margin of safety, to protect public health, vegetation and property. The NAAQS prescribe specific
standards for industrial, residential, rural and other sensitive areas. Industry-specific emission
standards have also been developed for iron and steel plants, cement plants, fertilizer plants, oil
refineries and the aluminum industry. The ambient quality standards prescribed in India are similar
to those prevailing in many developed and developing countries.

To empower the central and state pollution boards to meet grave emergencies, the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987, was enacted. The boards were authorized to take
immediate measures to tackle such emergencies and recover the expenses incurred from the
offenders. The power to cancel consent for non-fulfillment of the conditions prescribed has also
been emphasized in the Air Act Amendment.

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules formulated in 1982, defined the procedures
for conducting meetings of the boards, the powers of the presiding officers, decision-making, the
quorum; manner in which the records of the meeting were to be set etc. They also prescribed the
manner and the purpose of seeking assistance from specialists and the fee to be paid to them.

Forests and wildlife

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:
The (Wildlife Protection Act), 1972, provides for protection to listed species of flora and fauna
and establishes a network of ecologically-important protected areas. The WPA empowers the
Central and State governments to declare any area a wildlife sanctuary, national park or closed
area. There is a blanket ban on carrying out any industrial activity inside these protected areas. It
provides for authorities to administer and implement the Act; regulate the hunting of wild animals;
protect specified plants, sanctuaries, national parks and closed areas; restrict trade or commerce in
wild animals or animal articles; and miscellaneous matters. The Act prohibits hunting of animals
except with permission of authorized officer when an animal has become dangerous to human life
or property or so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery (WWF-India, 1999). The near-
total prohibition on hunting was made more effective by the Amendment Act of 1991.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

This Act was adopted to protect and conserve forests. The Act restricts the powers of the state in
respect of de-reservation of forests and use of forestland for non-forest purposes (the term non-
forest purpose includes clearing any forestland for cultivation of cash crops, plantation crops,
horticulture or any purpose other than re-forestation).

General law for protection of environment

Bhopal Disaster
The Bhopal Disaster, also referred to as the Bhopal gas tragedy, was a gas leak incident in India,
considered one of the world’s worst industrial disasters. It occurred on the night between 2 nd and
3rd December, 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh. Over 500,000 people were exposedto methyl isocynate gas and other chemicals. The toxic
substance made its way in and around the shanty towns located near the plant. Estimates vary on
the death toll. The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the
gas release.

Environment Protection Act, 1986

It was the Bhopal gas tragedy which necessitated the Government of India to enact a
comprehensive environment legislation, including rules relating to storing, handling and use of
hazardous waste. On the basis of these rules, the Indian Parliament enacted the Environment
Protection Act, 1986. This is an umbrella legislation that considered the provisions of the Water(
Prevention of Control and pollution) Act pf 1974 and Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act of 1981. Within this framework of the legislations, the government established Pollution
Control Boards (PCBs) in order to prevent, comtrol, and abate environmental pollution.

The objective of the Environment Protection Act is to prevent and improve the environment in the
country.

Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA), 1991

The Act covers accidents involving hazardous substances and insurance coverage for these. Where
death or injury results from an accident, this Act makes the owner liable to provide relief as is
specified in the Schedule of the Act. The PLIA was amended in 1992, and the Central Government
was authorized to establish the Environmental Relief Fund, for making relief payments.

National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995

The Act provided strict liability for damages arising out of any accident occurring while handling
anything hazardous substance and for the establishment of a National Environment Tribunal for
effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accident, with a view to give relief
and compensation for damages to persons, property and the environment and for the matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The Biological Diversity Act 2002 was born out of India's attempt to realise the objectives
enshrined in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 which
recognises the sovereign rights of states to use their own Biological Resources. The Act aims
at the conservation of biological resources and associated knowledge as well as facilitating
access to them in a sustainable manner. The National Biodiversity Authority in Chennai has
been established for the purposes of implementing the objects of the Act 12.

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011

The Ministry of Environment and Forests had issued the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification
vide Notification no. S O. 19(E), dated January 06, 2011 with an objective to ensure livelihood
security to the fishing communities and other local communities living in the coa stal areas, to
conserve and protect coastal stretches and to promote development in a sustainable manner

12
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/624836/Waste+Management/Environment+Laws+In+India
based on scientific principles, taking into account the dangers of natural hazards in the coastal
areas and sea level rise due to global warming 13.

CONCLUSION
From the above discussion I concluded that constitution provide us rights but its our responsibility
to clean the environment and aware the surrounding people. There are so many laws but people
are not aware of these laws hence they violate the law so we can aware the people through
awareness programmes, protests and this is most useful at individual level, if everyone thought not
to throw the garbage on the roads and save the Environmental and also thought that its their duty
then we can protect the environment from degrading. That’s why government of India launches a
environmental programmes every year or monthly but it should be useful only when every single
person keep in mind not to pollute the environment then only it is beneficial.

Connecting human rights and environment is a valuable sourcebook that explores the uncharted
territory that lies between environmental and human rights legislation.

Human beings can ensure fundamental equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment
that permits a life of dignity and well-being.

There is an urgent need to formulate laws keeping in mind the fact that those who pollute or destroy
the natural environment are not just committing a crime against nature, but are violating human
rights as well.

13
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/624836/Waste+Management/Environment+Laws+In+India
Indeed, health has seemed to be the subject that bridges gaps between the two fields of
environmental protection and human rights.

The advancement of the relationship between human rights and environment would enable
incorporation of human rights principles within an environmental scope, such as anti
discrimination standards, the need for social participation and the protection of vulnerable groups.

Bibliography
Internet Sources:
 http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/624836/Waste+Management/Environment+Laws+In+In
dia

 https://www.indianbarassociation.org

 https://www.nios.ac.in>338-Book2_New

 https://14.139.60.114>jspui>bitstream>011

 https://rdf.org>Download>RFF-DP-04-30