serious diseases.

It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central

Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the Central
Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

It was directed that a ‘Green Bench’ would be constituted to deal with this
case and opther environmental matters.

In Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board case the court relied on the Vellore
case before pondering over the various dimensions of the precautionary
principle.

The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time
have led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period
between the Stockholm Conferences of 1972, and the Rio Declaration. In
Vellore case, a three-judge /bench of this court referred to these changes, the
‘precautionary principle’, and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in
environmental matters. The court said that the precautionary principle
replaces the assimilative capacity principles.

The court pointed out that earlier, the concept was based on the ‘assimilative
capacity’, which assumed that science could provide the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment
to assimilate impacts, and that relevant technical expertise would be available
when environmental harm was predicted. In Principle 11 of the UN General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature 1982, the emphasis shifted
to the ‘precautionary principle.’ This was reiterated in the Rio Declaration in its
Principle 15 which reads as follows:

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