Principles of International Environmental

Law
Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles

Environmental Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court:

Litigation, Interpretation, Implementation
Environmental Law and Policy in
India– Cases, Materials and Statutes
Environmental Law Case Book
Environmental Law in India
Environmental Law in India
Environmental Law
Trail Smelter Arbitration (United State/Canada), 3 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arb.
Awards 1905 (1941)
Missouri the State of Illinois
 Case Concerning the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project
(Hungary/Slovakia), International Court of Justice, Judgment of 25
September 1997 (separate opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry)1
sine qua non
 a priori a
posteriori

The Law of Nations

 de rigueur

International Law
and the Grotiun Heritage: A Cornmernorative Colloquiurn on the Occasion of the Fourth Centrnary of
the Birth of Hugo Grotius
par excellence
 sic utere tuo ut alienum non
laedas
Alienum

The Law of Nations

Humun Rights and the Future of' Mankind
 Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s
Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests
Legality of the Use by a State of Nucleur Weapons in Armed Conflict
 Namibia

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued

Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security
Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports

South
West Africa
I.C.J.
Reports 1966

Oppenheim's International Law

 Inter Partes Erga
Omnes

erga omnes
 Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
(Argentina/Uruguay), International Court of Justice, Judgment of 20
April 2010

On behalf of the Government of Argentina,

On behalf of the Government of Uruguay,

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

Pravinbhai Jashbhai Patel State of Gujarat

now
Relevant statutory provisions

b
c
 defines ‘environment’

to take all such measures as it deems necessary

or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment

Consideration of the submissions

Oleum Gas Leak
 Rylands Fletcher

Union Carbide
Corpn.
Oleum Gas Leak ,

M.C. Mehta

M.C. Mehta

Rylands Fletcher
M.C.
Mehta ,

Oleum Gas Leak ,

take all
such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and
improving the quality of environment...
 a

Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action

Rylands
Fletcher,
Oleum Gas Leak
Rylands

Rylands
 Rylands
Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. Eastern Counties Leather, plc,

Rylands

Rylands

Rylands
Ballard Tomlinson

foreseeability

nuisance Rylands

but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff

has failed to establish that pollution of their water supply by the solvent used by the defendant
in his premises was in the circumstances of the case foreseeable by the defendant

Rylands
Burnie Port Authority General Jones Pty Ltd.

Rylands
 negligence

the authority
owed a non-delegable duty of care to General Jones to ensure that its contractor took
reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of a fire and the breach of that duty attracted
liability pursuant to the ordinary principles of negligence for the damage sustained by the
respondent

Oleum Gas Leak

obiter

irrespective

and

Oleum Gas Leak

Directions
 all

forma
pauperis
forma pauperis
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 12
SCC 768
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715

sic

Our Common Future

Brundtland Report
 i

ii

iii

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Union of India

irrespective
 Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution were quoted

Commentaries on the Laws of England of Sir

William Blackstone,
inter alia
 Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Environment Act and Rules 3(1), 3(2) and 5(1) of the
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 were quoted by the court
v vi vii viii ix x xii
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751

(For Dr. Anand, C.J. and himself) (Majority View)

a b
 inter alia

Rival contentions

General issues relating to displacement of tribals and alleged violation of the rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution
Environmental issues
Re: environmental clearance

pari passu
 pari
passu

A.P. Pollution Control Board

inter alia

Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Union of India

status quo

38
A.P. Pollution Control Board

Sierra Club etc. Robert F. Froehlke

inter alia

inter alia,

Sierra Club decision

 per se

pari passu
Conclusion

convey
mala fide
per se
Directions

i ii

1
2

pari passu

5
6

pari passu

10

dissenting
 a
b
c
1
2

9
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., AIR 2006
SC 1350

status quo ante

 M.C.
Mehta Kamal Nath
 Corfu Channel

Sustainable Development
 Essar Oil Ltd. Halar Utkarsh Samiti

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action

Union of India

Public trust doctrine

Illinois Central Railroad Co. People of the State of Illinois,

 M.C. Mehta Kamal Nath M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. Radhey Shyam
Sahu M.C. Mehta

National Audubon Society Superior Court of

Alpine Country

prohibit

Michigan Law Review

 A.P. Pollution Control
Board . Prof. M.V. Nayudu
 Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group Bombay Suburban
Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.
With regard to Peruru tank

With regard to Avilala tank

Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors., Supreme Court,
Civil Appeal No. 5109/2019, decided on 25 November 2019
Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya Palaguda Anjayya1
Jagpal Singh State of Punjab
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
 Kundori Labours Co-operative Society Ltd.
State of Bihar
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra State of U.P.
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734

Report on Environmental Impact of

Mathura Refinery”
Safety Requirements

Summary
4

ii
92

93

95

96
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Union of India
 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388

Indian
Express
 l

(m)

(n)

(o)

(s)

(t)

(i) Dredging of debris deposit

(ii) Strengthening of both banks with wire crates

 (a)

(b)

(c)
(d)

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Harv. Envtl. L. Rev.
 res nullious res
communious

Mich. L. Rev.
 Illinois Central Railroad Co. People of the State of Illinois

Illinois Central

Gould Greylock Reservation Commission

 Gould

Gould Illinois Central

Sacco Development of Public Works

Robbins Deptt. of Public Works

National Audubon Society Superior Court of Alpine Country
Mono Lake

sic

Marks
Whitney
 Marks Whitney

Mono Lake

Mono Lake

Phillips Petroleum Co. Mississippi

Phillips
Petroleum
 Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Union of India

Indian Council for Enviro-

Legal Action Union of India
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIR 2000 SC 1997
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Union of India

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum

Union of India
 Supreme
Court Bar Association Union of India
V.C. Mishra, Re
 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 2002 (2) SCALE 654

M.C. Mehta Kamal

Nath

We, however, make it clear that this Court in the judgment dated December 13,
1996 has found as a fact that the Motel by constructing walls and bunds on the river
Banks and in the river Bed, as detailed in the judgment, has interfered with the flow
of the river. The said finding is final and no argument can be permitted to be
addressed in that respect.
 in extenso

sine qua non

*****
 Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109

Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the court, the

court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A of the Constitution, the Directive Principle which
enjoins that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”, and Article 51-A(g) which proclaims it to
be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures”. When the court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the
fundamental duty, the court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of
policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the court may do is
to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded.
In appropriate cases, the court may go further, but how much further must depend on the
circumstances of the case. The court may always give necessary directions. However the
court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves
the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the court may feel justified in resigning itself to
acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority.
(Emphasis added)
1
2
*****
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115

M.C.
Mehta Union of India
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

BENEFITS OF CONTROL
URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM

Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling

Association British Celanese Ltd.
M/s Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board for the Prevention
and Control of Water Pollution, AIR 1986 Del. 152
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand, (1980) 4 SCC 162

Duties of Council
b

sramdan

nallah
nallah

nallah
a

i
ii

shall
 alibi

within a time to
be fixed in the order.
Access to justice
Govind Singh Shanti Sarup
as amongst its primary duties’
State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 3236
 Vasant Manga Nikumba Baburao
Bhikanna Naidu (deceased) by Lrs.
Garnett Bradley
Forum Prevention of Envn. & Sound Pollution v India

CWP No. 72/98

 Free Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand
Aggarwal alias Bhagatji . Govt. of NCT of Delhi P.A.
Jacob . Superintendent of Police, Kottayam

STATUTORY LAWS IN INDIA

Rule 119. Horns

Noise standards

Rule 120. Silencers

 Kirori Mal Bishambar Dayal The State,

Bhuban Ram
Bibhuti Bhushan Biswas

Ivour Heyden State of Andhra Pradesh

 Rabin Mukherjee State of West Bengal,

People United for better Living in Calcutta State of West Bengal

Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association Commissioner of police, Calcutta

Church of God (Full Gospel) in India K.K.R. Majestic

Colony Welfare Assn.
“89. Noise standards for fire-crackers A.
DIFFICULTY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL
METHODOLOGY IN INDIA
I. Firecrackers

II. Loudspeakers
III. Vehicular Noise

IV. Awareness

V. Generally
Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. KKR Majestic Welfare Colony
Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773
S. Jagannath v. Union of India

d
 Prohibited Activities

ii

iii

viii

Oxford English Dictionary

Webster’s Comprehensive
Dictionary
viii

viii
 v vi vii viii ix x
xii

i
b
MC Mehta v Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak case)
Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India,
Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors, Supreme Court,
Civil Appeal No. 1359/017, Judgement of 22 September 2017.

=_=
d
L

=
-
Sansar Chand v State of Rajasthan, 2010 (10) SCC 604
Divya Pharmacy v Union of India, High Court of Uttarakhand, WP
3437/2016, Decided on 21 December 2018.