Assignment 1683198712785

4.
Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, Public

Trust Doctrine, Sustainable Development, cases at National
Green Law Tribunal, Powers and functions of NGT.
Anil K Thakur LLC
By: Anil K Thakur (Asst. Prof.)

Lloyd Law College
Last updated: May, 2023
(B.A. LL.B VI Sem. 2020-25)
Topic-4
• Topic-4.1
Polluter Pays Principle
• Topic-4.2
Precautionary Principle
• Topic-4.3
Public Trust Doctrine
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Topic-4.4
Sustainable Development
• Topic-4.5
Cases at National Green Law Tribunal
• Topic-4.6
Powers and functions of NGT
Topic-4.1
Polluter Pays Principle
Anil K Thakur LLC
Polluter Pays Principle-meaning
• ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ is also known as ‘Extended

Producer Responsibility’ (EPR).
• Polluter Pays Principle has become a popular in
recent times.
• 'If you make a mess, it's your duty to clean it up'-
this is the main basis of this slogan.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• It should be mentioned that in environmental law, it

favors a curative approach which is concerned with
repairing ecological damage.
• It's a principle in international environmental law
where the polluting party pays for the damage done
to the natural environment.
Historical Background
• The Polluter pays principle was first referred to at
the international level explicitly in 1972 in a
Council Recommendation on Guiding Principles
Concerning the International Economic Aspects of
Environmental Policies of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)*.
• The 1972 OECD Council Recommendation added
Anil K Thakur LLC
the polluter pays principle to allocate costs of

pollution prevention and control measures to
promote the prudent use of environmental
resources and to prevent likely falsehood in
figures on international trade and investment.
About Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)
• The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD); is an intergovernmental economic
organisation with 38 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate
economic progress and world trade.
• It is a forum of countries describing themselves as committed
to democracy and the market economy, providing a platform to
compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems,
identify good practices and coordinate domestic and international
policies of its members.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The majority of OECD members are high-income economies with a very

high Human Development Index (HDI) and are regarded as developed
countries.
• As of 2017, the OECD member countries collectively comprised 62.2%
of global nominal GDP (US$49.6 trillion) and 42.8% of global GDP
(Int$54.2 trillion) at purchasing power parity.
• The OECD is an official United Nations observer.
• How to get OECD membership, to know this visit:
https://www.oecd.org/about/members-and-partners/#
About Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD)
• The OECD's headquarters are at the Château de la
Muette in Paris, France.
• The OECD is funded by contributions from
member countries at varying rates and had a total
Anil K Thakur LLC
budget of €386 million in 2019.

• The OECD is recognised as a highly influential
publisher of mostly economic data through
publications as well as annual evaluations and
rankings of member countries.
• For more visit: https://www.oecd.org/
Member Countries' Budget
Contributions
• All Member countries contribute funding to the Part I Budget.
The contributions (see web-link below) are based on both a
proportion that is shared equally among member countries and
a scale that is proportional to the relative size of their
economies. The Part I Budget for 2023 is EUR 219.6 million.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Part II Budgets, meanwhile, cover programmes that are of

interest to a limited number of Members and are funded
according to scales of contributions or other agreements among
the participating countries. The consolidated Part II Budgets for
2023 amount to EUR 118.7 million. The combined Part I and Part
II Budgets come to EUR 338.3 million.
• Web-link-
• https://www.oecd.org/about/budget/member-countries-
budget-contributions.htm
• The polluter pays principle was reaffirmed as a
fundamental principle for the Member States
during the 1974 OECD Council Recommendation
on the Implementation of the Polluter-Pays
Principle.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The OECD initiative was the result of demands

on governments and other institutions to
introduce policies and mechanisms for the
protection of the environment and the public
from the threats posed by pollution in a modern
industrialized society.
• The principle was subsequently endorsed in 1973
when the European Community (EC) adopted a
program of action on the environment.
• Subsequently, an EC Council Recommendation
(1975) provided that Member states should
Anil K Thakur LLC
apply the polluter pays principle.

• It further provided that natural or legal persons
must pay the price of such measures that are
necessary to reduce or remove the pollution to
meet the standards or equivalent measures laid
down by public authorities.
• The polluter pays principle was also adopted in
the ASEAN Agreement on Conservation on
Nature and Natural Resources adopted in 1985.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Through the lens of international law, the PPP is

enshrined in Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration,
which states that ‘the polluter should, in
principle, bear the cost of pollution.’
• The United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development, 1992 in Principle 15
incorporates the polluter pays principle.
Anil K Thakur LLC
Polluter Pays Principle in Indian Context:
• The Supreme Court of India inexplicitly applied the

principle in the case of M.C. Mehta and Anr. vs Union of
India & Ors. 1987 AIR 1086 (Oleum Gas Leakage case) in
the year 1986.
• It was declared by the court that ‘we have to evolve new
principles and lay down new norms, which would
adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a
Anil K Thakur LLC
highly industrialized economy’.

• The significance of this judgment lies in the court’s
formulation of the principle of the measure of liability of
industry engaged in ‘hazardous or inherently dangerous
activities’.
• Such measure must be correlated to the magnitude and
capacity of the enterprise.
Polluter Pays Principle in Indian Context
• Secondly, the court directed the industry either to shift from
the present location or evolve a green belt around it as a
condition precedent to restart the industry.
• Further, the industry was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.
35,00,000/- in a bank and a guarantee of Rs. 15,00,000/-
with the court for compensation to be paid to one who can
Anil K Thakur LLC
prove before the court of law that he suffered because of

the Oleum gas leakage from the Sri Ram Food and Fertiliser
Corporation.
• Thus an innovative remedy was evolved by the Supreme
Court of India in this case which was indirect recognition
and application of the ‘polluter pays principle’.
Indian Judiciary and PPP
• It was for the first time in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India, 1996 SCC (3) 212 that the court
explicitly applied this principle.
• It was declared by the court that redemption of the
damaged environment is a part of the process of
sustainable development and as such polluter is liable to
pay the cost of the individual sufferers as well as the cost
Anil K Thakur LLC
of reversing the damaged ecology.

• Thus, the ‘polluter pays principle’ means the absolute
liability for harm to the environment extends not only to
compensate the victims of pollution but also to the cost of
restoring the environmental degradation.
• Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the
process of sustainable development.
• In this case, five chemical industries were producing
H-acid (1-napthol-8-amino, 6- disciphonic acid).
• An azo dye and untreated toxic sludge were
discharged into the open compound which, in due
course of time, flowed through a canal across the
entire area and the rainwater washed the sludge
Anil K Thakur LLC
deep into the bowels of the earth.

• It caused pollution of river water and underground
water upto 70 feet below the ground within a radius
of seven miles of the village Bicchari.
• It further left the fields nearby infertile, as a result of
which residents had to migrate out of the village.
• The Court while making a landmark judgment on
this PIL, also kept in mind that any principle
adopted by it must be simple, practical and
suited to the conditions prevailing in the
country.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Looking at the widespread ramification of the

hazardous or inherently dangerous activities,
persons or the institutions would be held ‘liable
absolutely’, though they have taken all
reasonable care while carrying out such activity.
• The liability to compensate is two fold;
• one, to compensate the victims of pollution for
inconvenience and health loss; and
• the other, to restore the environmental
Anil K Thakur LLC
degradation viz., of the soil, underground water

and the vegetation cover of that area. Such
remediation is part of the process of ‘sustainable
development’.
• It is also to be noted that all this does not
absolve a person from criminal liability.
basis to compute it
• It was also ordered by the court that the Central
Government must determine the amount
required for carrying out remedial measures
and the status report submitted by the National
Environmental & Engineering Research Institute
Anil K Thakur LLC
(NEERI) in the year 1994 be made a basis to

compute it.
• NEERI in its report had stated that rupees
4,00,00,000/- would be needed to restore the
power of soil and water contamination.
• The sincerity of the Supreme Court came to the
fore when it was pronounced that the Ministry of
Environment and Forest must recover the money
from the units and the recovered money be used
Anil K Thakur LLC
to repair the damage caused to the land and

water in the area.
• As a result of which plant and factories have been
sold by the State Government.
• The Supreme court in yet another case of Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC
1446 reiterated and declared in unequivocal terms
that ‘the precautionary principle and the polluter pays
principle are part of the environmental jurisprudence
of this country.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• These principles have been accepted as a part of the

law of the land as article 21 of the Constitution of
India guaranteed the protection of life and personal
liberty.
• There is also a constitutional mandate to protect and
improve the environment under articles 48-A and 51-A
(g).
• The Court also observed that this principle has
also been accepted as part of the customary
International Law, therefore, it automatically
becomes a part of the basic jurisprudence of the
land.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• In the same case, the court also ordered for the

creation of ‘Environment Protection Fund’.
• This fund could be utilized for compensating the
affected persons identified by the ‘authority’ and
also for ‘restoring the damaged environment’.
• In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, on 30 December,
1996 The Supreme Court reiterated the polluter
pays principle and re-emphasized the need to
apply it.
• It was a case of ‘yellowing and decaying of the Taj
Anil K Thakur LLC
Mahal’.
• The court ordered the industries to shift away from
the Taj Trapezium or to switch over to gas as fuel.
• The industries which did not switch over to gas
were ordered to be closed down unconditionally
by December 31, 1997.
• Even the workers of the industries were also
recognized as the victims of the polluting industries
and for the closure of industry, the workers are not to
be thrown out of the industry without any
economic/job security.
• They were also held to be entitled to certain rights
Anil K Thakur LLC
and benefits from the erring industries.

• Therefore, declaration of gratuitiy, compensation,
additional compensation or shifting allowance by the
Supreme Court, in this case, has given a new
dimension to environmental jurisprudence in India.
• There are certain statutes too, which directly or
indirectly adhered to the polluter pays principle.
Indian Laws and PPP
• The Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991 makes it
a mandatory duty of all the industries, which have a
capital value of Rs. 2,00,000 to get insured under
the Act.
• The premium of such insurance shall be collected in
Anil K Thakur LLC
the ‘Environment Relief Fund’ which shall be

available with the collector of the district.
• The collector in case of industrial accident/ disaster
shall pay, by way of relief, immediately to the
victims of the accident/disaster.
• This relief will not be a bar to file a case for
compensation.
Indian Laws and PPP
• Similarly, The National Environmental Tribunal
Act, 1995, also provided that tribunal can award
compensation on the ground of any damage to
the environment and such an amount shall be
remitted to the authority specified under section
Anil K Thakur LLC
7-A (3) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

for being credited to the Environmental Relief
Fund.
• The Act provided that if the owner of the unit/
industry fails to pay or deposit such an amount of
award within the specified period, it shall be
recoverable from the owner as arrears of land.
Indian Laws and PPP
• The abovementioned pronouncements clear out
the position of the Supreme court, that even
without being any statutory binding of the
principle, the action of the court has been very
effecting and innovative.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The court has always come to the rescue of

those who have suffered due to pollution.
• Such a firm stand of the court has taken by
surprise all those who used to manipulate the
apathetic environmental agencies.
Please Note
• The coming into force of the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010 implied an automatic repeal of two
existing laws:
• the National Environment Tribunal Act 1995, and
• the National Environment Appellate Authority Act,
1997, and,
Anil K Thakur LLC
• therefore, the closure of the National Environment

Appellate Authority (NEAA)-a quasi-judicial body
empowered to hear appeals against the
environmental approvals granted (or not) to
projects.
• All the cases pending before the NEAA were to be
heard by the NGT.
Topic-4.2
Precautionary Principle
Anil K Thakur LLC
What is Precautionary Principle?
• The Precautionary Principle has been adopted in
many environmental instruments all over the world.
• The principle states that if there is a risk of severe
damage to the environment, absence of any
scientific or conclusive proof is not to be given as a
reason for the inaction.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of

proof on the shoulders of the person who is arguing
that the activity he is carrying out is not harmful.
• The principle follows the approach of being safe
than being sorry.
• This principle is in contrast to the wait-and-watch
approach which is generally followed in
environmental issues.
What is Precautionary Principle?
• In short Precautionary Principle is a notion which
supports taking protective action before there is
complete scientific proof of a risk, that is action
should not be delayed simply because full
Anil K Thakur LLC
scientific information is lacking.

When Precautionary Principle is used?
• Many times the scientific evidence do not give
any conclusive information.
• In such a case risk assessment should be done
and a balance should be maintained between
Anil K Thakur LLC
protection of the environment and unnecessary

and extensive restrictions.
• In such a scenario, Precautionary Principle is
used.
• While applying the principle, it is very crucial to
understand the consequences of applying it.
Precautionary Principle - Global Perspective
• The Precautionary Principle appeared on the
global stage in the 1980s.
• It was first acknowledged formally in the
Preamble to the Vienna Convention for the
Anil K Thakur LLC
Protection of the Ozone Layer.

• The parties who were signatory to the
Convention acknowledged the precautionary
measures which have already been taken at the
international and the national levels to protect
the ozone layer.
Montreal Protocol
• Banking on this recognition, the Montreal
Protocol was introduced in 1987 where the
signatories agreed to undertake
precautionary measures to control the
Anil K Thakur LLC
emission of substances which depleted the

ozone layer.
London Declaration
• The need to adopt measures which were
precautionary in nature were also recognized in
the Second North Sea Conference Ministerial
Declaration (the London Declaration) in 1987.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• At the Third Sea Conference 1994, the parties

came to a decision that they would continue
applying preventive measures to prevent
damage, even there is no scientific evidence.
Convention on the Protection of
the Marine Environment
• The precautionary principle was also included in
the Convention on the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic, which
Anil K Thakur LLC
was introduced in the year 1992.

Helsinki Convention
• In the year 1992, the Helsinki Convention on the

Protection and Use of Trans-boundary
Watercourses and International Lakes was
introduced.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The signatories to this Convention decided to be

guided by the Precautionary Principle.
UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change
• The year of 1992 was very important in this
regard.
• There was a convergence of the precautionary
Anil K Thakur LLC
principle and the climate change issue in

International Law.
• The Precautionary Principle was acknowledged
on international level when the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change was adopted.
Basic Features of Precautionary Principle
• It allows for five key elements that can prevent

irreversible damage to people and nature-
1. Anticipatory Action
2. Right to know
Anil K Thakur LLC
3. Alternatives Assessment
4. Full cost accounting
5. Participatory Decision Process
1. Anticipatory Action:
• There is a duty to take anticipatory action to
prevent harm.
• Government, business, and community groups,
Anil K Thakur LLC
as well as general public, share their

responsibility.
2. Right to know:
• The community has a right to know complete
and accurate information on potential human
health and environmental impacts associated
with the selection of products, services,
Anil K Thakur LLC
operations, or plans.
• The burden to supply this information lies with
the proponent, not with the general public.
3. Alternatives Assessment:
• An obligation exists to examine a full range of
alternatives and select the alternative with the
least potential impact on human health and the
Anil K Thakur LLC
environment, including the alternative of doing

nothing.
4. Full cost accounting:
• When evaluating potential alternatives, there is a
duty to consider all the reasonably foreseeable
costs, including raw materials, manufacturing,
transportation, use, cleanup, eventual disposal,
and health costs even if such costs are not
Anil K Thakur LLC
reflected in the initial price.

• Short and long-term benefits and time
thresholds should be considered when making
decisions.
5. Participatory Decision Process:
• Decisions applying the precautionary principle
must be transparent, participatory, and
informed by the best available scientific and
other relevant information.
Anil K Thakur LLC
Precautionary Principle & Indian Law
• The Indian Judiciary actively supports the

Precautionary Principle.
• A few important cases are discussed
hereinafter:
Anil K Thakur LLC
SC explained the “precautionary principle”
• SC in Vellore Citizens Welfare forum v. Union of
India (2009) 6 SCC 142 explained the “precautionary
principle” as follows:
• The ‘precautionary principle’ in the context of municipal
law means:
i. Environmental measures by the state government and
statutory authorities-must anticipate, prevent and attack
Anil K Thakur LLC
the cause of environmental degradation.

ii. Where there are threats of serious and irreversible
damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a
reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
iii. The ‘onus of proof ‘is on the actor or the developer
/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally
benign.
M C Mehta v Kamal Nath
(1997) 1 SCC 388
• In the case of M C Mehta v Kamal Nath, the
Supreme Court reiterated the decision given in
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case stating
Anil K Thakur LLC
that the Precautionary Principle is a part of

the environment law in India.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v UOI
AIR 2000 SC 3751
• In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v UOI, the
Apex Court very clearly laid down the proposition of
law, and specifically of Precautionary Principle.
• The Court stated that when an issue pertains to
Anil K Thakur LLC
environmental damage, the onus of proof is on the

person who is contending that the activities carried
on by him are not harmful to the environment.
• The party who is giving such contention also has to
satisfy the Court of the same, that there will be no
environmental degradation due to his activities.
AP Control Pollution Board vs. Prof M V Nayadu
AIR 1999 SC 812
• The Precautionary Principle was very
comprehensively reviewed by the Apex Court in the
case of AP Control Pollution Board vs. Prof M V
Nayadu.
• The Court stated that it is better to go wrong in
Anil K Thakur LLC
taking caution and prevent environmental harm

rather than waiting for the issue to materialize into
an irreversible problem.
• The Court opined that the Precautionary Principle
was evolved because of lack of scientific certainty
only, and the principle involves anticipating the
harm the environment may suffer and act on the
basis of that.
Anil K Thakur LLC
Topic-4.3
What is Public Trust Doctrine?
• The Public Trust Doctrine is the principle that
certain resources are preserved for public use,
and that the government is required to maintain
Anil K Thakur LLC
them for the reasonable public use.

Basic idea
• The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the
principle that certain resources like air, water, sea
and the forests have such a great importance to
people as a whole that it would be wholly
unjustified to make them a subject of private
Anil K Thakur LLC
ownership.
• It is based on the notion that the public holds
inviolable rights in certain lands and resources,
and that regardless of title ownership, and that
the state retains certain rights in such lands and
resources in trust for the public.
Issues which Public Trust Doctrine redress are-
• Who owns the Earth and its resources?

• To what extent may the general public claim the
pure water, clean air, rich soil, and the myriad
services Earth provides to sustain human life?
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Across continents and spanning centuries, a

dynamic tension continues between those who
would limit the Earth’s bounty for private use and
those who would carefully allot Earth’s riches to
satisfy human needs.
History of this doctrine
• About 1,500 years ago, the Roman Emperor Justinian
simplified the jumble of laws governing his Empire.
• He commissioned dozens of the era’s leading jurists,
whose wisdom became codified in the Corpus Juris
Civilis.
• In 529, Justinian added these words to one section:
Anil K Thakur LLC
“By the law of nature these things are common to all

mankind, the air, running water, the sea and
consequently the shores of the sea.”
• The Public Trust Doctrine, as this notion came to be
known, suggests that certain resources—usually
water, but now much more, are common, shared
property of all citizens, stewarded in perpetuity by the
State.
Doctrine adopted by English Common
• The Doctrine has its origin in Justinian Institute (530
A.D.) of Romans, later on adopted by the English
Common Law.
• The Magna Carta (1215) with its changes introduced
in 1641 and 1647 declared that Public Trust Doctrine
Anil K Thakur LLC
was the part of their established law.

• They declared that the Government has an affirmative
duty to administer, protect, manage and conserve fish
and wildlife.
• The doctrine had also been acknowledged by the
French Civil Code and Spanish Civil Law as a concept
of property.
Public Trust Doctrine imposes
Three types of restrictions on govt.
• Three types of restrictions on governmental
authority are often thought to be imposed by the
Public Trust Doctrine:
• first, the property subject to the trust must not
only be used for a public purpose, but it must be
Anil K Thakur LLC
held available for use by the general public;

• second, the property may not be sold, even for a
fair cash equivalent; and
• third the property must be maintained for
particular types of uses.
Doctrine of Public Trust & United Nations
• The Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on
Human Environment* clearly indicates this
determining proposition:
• The natural resources of the earth, including the
Anil K Thakur LLC
air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially

representative samples of natural system, must
be safeguarded for the benefit of present and
future generations through careful planning or
management, as appropriate
*United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 5-16 June 1972, Stockholm
India & Public Trust Doctrine
• Our legal system-based on English Common law- includes
the Public Trust Doctrine as a part of its jurisprudence.
• The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by
nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large
is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs,
forests and ecologically fragile lands.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the

natural resources; these resources are meant for public use
and cannot be converted into private ownership.
• The aesthetic use and the pristine glory cannot be
permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other
use unless the courts find it necessary in good faith, for
public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said
resource.
India & Public Trust Doctrine
• In India, Judges have taken these substantive and
procedural rights seriously and have strengthened
them by establishing the Public Trust Doctrine to
secure powerful protections for citizens’
Environmental Human Rights.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The PTD has developed in India through several

landmark cases in the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court has deduced this doctrine from
various sources such as the Common Law and Article
21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the
fundamental right to life, and Article 39 in Part IV of
the Constitution which provides for equitable
distribution of material resources.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath,
(1997) 1 SCC 388
• The doctrine was first invoked in 1995 by the SC in the famous M.C.
Mehta v. Kamal Nath (‘Span Motels case’).
• In this PIL, the petitioner challenged a tourist resort namely Span
Motels which proposed to change the course of the river Beas by
dredging, blasting and reconstructing the riverbed.
• The construction of the resort was planned on protected forest land
procured on a ninety-nine year lease from the government.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The redirection of the course of the river had been approved by the
Ministry of Environment and Forests as well as the local Gram
Panchayat.
• The SC ruled that the lease of forest land for resort construction as well
as the diversion of the river violated the PTD and therefore were not
tenable.
• Importantly, the court declared that the PTD, being part of the
Common Law system, was ‘law of the land’.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others [(1997)
1 SCC 388] (Para 28)
• Public Trust Doctrine is part of the law of land - The
role of the State cannot be confined to that of a
facilitator or generator of economic activities for
immediate upliftment of the fortunes of the State.
• The State also has to act as a trustee for the benefit
Anil K Thakur LLC
of the general public in relation to the natural

resources so that sustainable development can be
achieved in the long term.
• Such role of the State is more relevant today, than,
possibly, at any point of time in history with the
threat of climate catastrophe resulting from global
warming looming large.
K. M. Chinnappa v Union of India
AIR 2003 SC 724
• This was a petition challenging the renewal of
mining lease granted to Kudremukh Iron Ore
Company in the Kudremukh National Park
Chikkmagaluru district, in Karnataka.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The Supreme Court held that the pristine glory of

the natural resources cannot be allowed to be
eroded or encroached unless the Courts find it
necessary in good faith for public good and in the
public interest.
State of West Bengal v Kesoram Industries Ltd.
(2004) 10 SCC 201
• This Doctrine was once again followed wherein it
was observed that deep underground water
belongs to the State in the sense that the
Doctrine of Public Trust extends thereto.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Ground water is considered as a part of national

wealth and it belongs to the entire society.
• Water is a nectar sustaining life on earth and thus
the State has a duty to protect ground water
against excessive exploitation.
M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu,
(1999) 6 SCC 464
• Subsequently, in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey
Shyam Sahu,(‘M.I. Builders’ case) the Supreme
Court ruled that the builder who had destroyed a
public park during construction of a shopping
Anil K Thakur LLC
complex should restore it as the park was

protected under the PTD derived from the right to
life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins,
(2009) 3 SCC 571.
• Later in the Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. Vs.
Minguel Martins (‘Fomento Resorts Case’) the
Supreme Court reiterated that natural resources are
common properties held by the state as a trustee on
behalf of the people, especially the future
generations.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Therefore, the state cannot transfer public trust

properties to a private party, if such a transfer
interferes with the access rights of the public.
• The public trust doctrine allows the judiciary to
protect the rights of public at large to have access to
light, air and water and also to protect rivers, seas,
lakes, trees, forests and associated natural eco-
systems.
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance
Industries Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 1.
• In Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance
Industries Ltd. (‘Reliance Industries Limited’), the
Supreme Court interpreted Article 297 of the Indian
Constitution, to find that the people of India as a
Anil K Thakur LLC
nation are the true owners of the natural gas.

• The Court also relied on Article 39 included in Part IV
of the Constitution which calls for an equitable
distribution of India’s material resources to best
serve the common good which includes fairness to
future generations.
Earlier v/s recent court interpretations
• While earlier interpretations of the doctrine saw
the obligations imposed on the state as being
negative in nature – a review of actions that the
state may not perform.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Recent judgments have started to see such

obligations as positive in nature.
Topic-4.4
Sustainable Development
Anil K Thakur LLC
Idea of Sustainable Development
• Right to wholesome environment is a fundamental right

protected under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
• But the question is, can the environment be protected at
present times when almost all the countries in South-East
Asia are still at their developing stages?
• Development comes through industrialization, which in
Anil K Thakur LLC
turn the main factor behind the degradation of

environment.
• To resolve the issue, the experts worldwide have come up
with a doctrine called 'Sustainable Development', i.e.
there must be balance between development and ecology.
Origin of the doctrine:
• The concept of 'Sustainable Development' is not
a new concept.
• The doctrine had come to be known as early as
in 1972 in the Stockholm declaration. It had
been stated in the declaration that:
• “Man has the fundamental right to freedom,
Anil K Thakur LLC
equality and adequate conditions of life, in an

environment of a quality that permits a life of
dignity and well being and he bears a solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the
environment for present and future generation”.
Origin of the doctrine:
• But the concept was given a definite shape in a report by
world commission on environment, which was known as
'our common future'. In 1987, the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED), which had been
set up in 1983, published a report entitled «Our common
future». The document came to be known as the
«Brundtland Report» after the Commission's chairwoman,
Gro Harlem Brundtland.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The commission, which was chaired by the then Norway

Prime Minister, Ms. G.H. Brundtland defined 'Sustainable
Development‘ as: Development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs.
• the concept had been further discussed under agenda 21
of UN conference on environment and development held
in June 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Anil K Thakur LLC
Core Elements of Sustainable Development
• Three core elements of sustainable
development are-
1. economic growth ;
2. social inclusion; and
Anil K Thakur LLC
3. environmental protection.
• It is crucial to harmonize them.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
• To bring sustainable development in the
mainstream United Nations (UN) launched the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development and SDGs.
• This universal, integrated and transformative
agenda aims to spur actions that will end poverty
and build a more sustainable world over the next 15
Anil K Thakur LLC
years.
• There are 17 goals and 169 targets to be achieved by
2030.
• Reaching the goals requires action on all fronts-
governments, businesses, civil society and people
everywhere all have a role to play.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
AIR 1996 SC 2715
• In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of
India, the Supreme Court opined, the traditional
concept that development and ecology are
opposed to each other, is no longer acceptable,
Anil K Thakur LLC
sustainable development is the answer.

• Sustainable Development means to fulfill the
need of present generation without
compromising the needs of future generation.
• Sustainable development is a balancing concept
between ecology and development.
Tarun Bhagat Sangh, Alwar vs. Union of India & others
1993 SCR (3) 21
• In a landmark case Tarun Bhagat Sangh, Alwar vs.
Union of India & others, the petitioner through a PIL
brought to the notice of the supreme court that the
state government of Rajasthan though empowered to
make rules to protect environment, failed to do so and
in contrary allowed mining work to continue within the
Anil K Thakur LLC
forest area.
• Consequently, the Supreme Court issued directions that
no mining work or operation could be continued within
the protected area.
• But it would be unwise to hold that the courts always
favour environment without giving any significance to
the development aspect when dispute arises between
environment and development.
M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India
(1990) 3 SCC 256.
Stone Crushing Units Closed
• In M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, the SC took note of environmental
pollution due to stone crushing activities in and around Delhi, Faridabad
and Ballabgarh complexes.
• The Court was conscious that environmental changes are the inevitable
consequences of industrial development in our country, but at the same
time the quality of environment cannot be permitted to be damaged by
polluting the air, water and land to such an extent that it becomes a health
Anil K Thakur LLC
hazard for the residents of the area.

• Showing deep concern to the environment, the court reiterated, "Every
citizen has a right to fresh air and to live in pollution free environment."
• Thus, the SC once again treated it as violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution and passed the order in absolute terms under Article 32
directing the stone crushing units to stop their activities in those areas.
• The Court further directed the government to rehabilitate these stone
crushers in "crushing zone" within the period of six months.
Topic-4.5
Cases @ National Green Tribunal
Anil K Thakur LLC
NGT bans on RO water filters
Friends through its General Secretary
v.
Ministry of Water Resources,
Anil K Thakur LLC
NGT Principal Bench,

New Delhi
Original Application No. 134/2015
NGT ban on RO water filters
• The NGT vide its order dated May 28, 2019 in
Friends through its General Secretary v. Ministry of
Water Resources, NGT Principal Bench, New Delhi
Original Application No. 134/2015 instructed the
Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Anil K Thakur LLC
Change ("MoEF & CC")

• to issue appropriate notification prohibiting the use
of RO systems in areas where the amount of TDS
was less than 500 milligram/litre (mg/l) and creating
of public awareness about ill effects of
demineralized water on public health namely
removal of important minerals as well as undue
wastage of water caused.
Proceedings before the SC
• Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of NGT, the
appellants challenged the impugned order in the
Supreme Court.
• Thus, the Supreme court in Water Quality
Association of India (WQAI) v. Friends and ors on
Anil K Thakur LLC
has now granted the appellants period of ten days

from the date of order to approach the Ministry
with relevant materials for consideration of their
contentions before an appropriate notification is
issued by the Ministry in furtherance to NGT's
order.
Proceedings before the SC
• The NGT through its order has indicated the
requirement of controlling the adverse impact of
demineralization of water for human consumption
and the wastage of unused water.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The NGT through its order has indicated the

requirement of controlling the adverse impact of
demineralization of water for human consumption
and the wastage of unused water in the era of
depleting natural resources which may be
addressed by the Government in due course of
time.
SC Order
• In a recent development, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India vide its order dated November
22, 2019 in the case of Water Quality
Association of India (WQAI) v. Friends and
ors. has directed the appellants
Anil K Thakur LLC
• i.e. manufacturers of Reverse Osmosis (RO)

water purifiers to point out to the Ministry the
material it has in possession against the ban
imposed by National Green Tribunal (NGT) on
use of reverse osmosis (RO) systems in areas
where the amount of total dissolved solids
(TDS) was less than 500 milligram/litre (mg/l).
NGT Case-Pollution caused by Diaries
Nuggehalli Jayasimha
v.
Government of NCT of Delhi
Anil K Thakur LLC
Original Application No. 46/2018,

NGT order dated 08.07.2019
Pollution caused by Diaries
• The Tribunal dealt in detail with the issue of non-
compliance of environmental norms by dairies
operating in Delhi.
• It was observed that livestock is a major source of
methane emissions causing surface temperatures to
Anil K Thakur LLC
surge up.
• The Tribunal directed Delhi Pollution Control
Committee (DPCC) to ensure that polluting
activities which are without Consent to Operate are
stopped by way of prohibitory order and further
DPCC cannot shift its onus and responsibility to
local bodies and to absolve from its responsibility.
Tribunal’s directions
• Accordingly, the Tribunal directed DPCC to enforce
its statutory obligations by closing polluting
activities, prosecuting the polluters and recovering
compensation in accordance with law and furnish
report to the Tribunal.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The CPCB was also directed to undertake study and

formulate appropriate guidelines for managing and
monitoring of environmental norms by dairies
throughout the India and furnish its report to the
Tribunal.
Menace of Sand Mining
National Green Tribunal Bar Association

v.
Anil K Thakur LLC
Virender Singh,

• The Tribunal took notice of the remedial action
required against illegal sand mining in violation of the
directions of H’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v.
State of Haryana &Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 629.
• The Supreme Court had observed that absence of
regulation of sand mining was a threat to biodiversity,
Anil K Thakur LLC
could destroy riverine vegetation, cause erosion,

pollute water sources badly affecting riparian ecology
and damaging ecosystem of rivers, safety of bridges,
weakening of river beds, destruction of natural habitats
of organisms living on the river beds, affect fish
breeding and migration and spell disaster for the
conservation of bird species and increase saline water
in the rivers.
• The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change issued Sustainable Sand-Mining Management
Guidelines 2016, however, it was noticed that the
same were not complied with.
• The Tribunal accordingly considered the issue of
revision of Guidelines in the light of directions of the
Anil K Thakur LLC
Tribunal and preparation of an effective monitoring

mechanism for preventive and remedial measures to
be taken in the states of West Bengal, Rajasthan,
Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh,
Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Goa and Telangana where
sand mining is more prevalent as compared to the
other states.
Conservation of Biological
Diversity
Chandra Bhal Singh
v.
Anil K Thakur LLC
Union of India & Ors.,

Conservation of Biological Diversity
• The issue for consideration before the Tribunal was

non-compliance of provisions of the Biodiversity Act,
2000 and the Biodiversity Rules, 2004.
• NGT noted that Biodiversity Management Committees
have not been constituted as per Section 41 of the Act
and People's Biodiversity Registers(PBR) have not been
Anil K Thakur LLC
maintained as required under Rule 22 (6).

• PBR helps the State and local community to become
aware of the valuable resources being harvested in the
area which can be utilised for overall social and
economic development of the State.
• Furthermore PBR also help in conservation of
traditional practices and knowledge of local
community.
Conservation of Biological Diversity
• In view of serious non compliance for the last 16
years, the Tribunal directed the Chief Secretaries of
all the States to evolve mechanism for monthly
meeting to be attended by the Chairman and
Member Secretary of State Biodiversity Boards,
Anil K Thakur LLC
Secretary of Panchayats Environment and Forest

starting from September 2019.
• States were ordered to be held accountable for
default and were required to deposit a sum of
Rupees 10 lakhs per month each from 01.01.2020.
• MoEF&CC was directed to file a compliance report
after collecting necessary data from all the States.
Rejuvenation of River Ganga
M.C.Mehta
v.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The matter was taken up by the Tribunal for reviewing
the progress and compliance of directions of the
Tribunal on preventing and limiting the pollution of
River Ganga.
• The Tribunal observed that prevention of discharge of
untreated industrial waste and sewage in River Ganga
Anil K Thakur LLC
and its tributaries, installation of Sewage Treatment

Plants (STPs) and Common and Combined Effluent
Treatment Plants(CETPs), installation of continuous
emission monitoring system, uses of treated
wastewater and sludge manure and setting up of bio-
digesters and seepage management and preventing
dumping of waste were the primary issues requiring
immediate attention.
• The Tribunal noted that River Ganga being national river with
distinct significance for the country, all the authorities have to be
stringent and effect zero tolerance to the pollution of River
Ganga.
• Taking a stern approach, the Tribunal ordered that the erring
industrial units would be liable to pay environmental
compensation of Rupees 10 lakhs per month to CPCB for
Anil K Thakur LLC
discharging untreated sewage in any drain connected to River

Ganga.
• With regard to sectors where the STP and separation network
work had not started, the State was held liable to pay
environmental compensation of Rupees 10 lakhs per month after
31.12.2020.
• The Tribunal also directed that a suitable tourism policy for
permitting hotels and vehicles for such other activities be evolved
which are consistent with the carrying capacity to avoid pollution
of River Ganga.
The problem of E-waste
Shailesh Singh
v.
Anil K Thakur LLC
State of U.P. & Ors.,

Original Application No. 512/2018
The problem of E-waste
• The question for consideration before the Tribunal was
remedial action against scientific disposal of E-waste which
was causing contamination of groundwater and soil
acidification.
• The Tribunal directed for furnishing the report of review on
the performance and working of parameters and
Anil K Thakur LLC
methodology developed for compliance of continuous

activities of action plan for enforcement of E-waste
(Management) Rules 2016.
• The State Pollution Control Boards were directed to furnish
implementation status in respect of checking of informal
trading, dismantling and recycling of e-waste collection and
disposal of e-waste governance framework for monitoring
compliance and capacity building at District, State and CPCB
level for enforcement.
Management of Hazardous Waste
Rajiv Narayan & Anr.

v.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The matter was taken up by NGT due to alarming
situation created by generation and scientific
dumping of hazardous waste resulting in serious
and irreversible damage to the environment and
public health.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The Tribunal observed large-scale non-compliance

of Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 vide its
order, the Tribunal constituted a monitoring
committee for management of hazardous waste
and the committee submitted its recommendations
to the Tribunal.
• The Tribunal directed CPCB and all SPCBs, CBIC,
DGFT, Port Authorities, Ministry of Shipping,
Ministry of Labour and Employment and
Department of Labour to comply with the
recommendations of the Expert Committee,
violation of which would attract environmental
Anil K Thakur LLC
compensation to be levied on the defaulting

parties.
• It was further directed to ensure that hazardous
waste inventory be updated and verified by way of
checks to ensure that the same is credible, reliable
and robust in terms of content and scope.
• 126 sites which were identified as contaminated were
directed to be cleared of the hazardous waste within 6
months so that the remediation process may be
started.
• With regard to 195 probable contaminated sites, the
Anil K Thakur LLC
Tribunal directed that the assessment may be

completed within 6 months and thereafter the waste
may be removed within next 6 months from sites.
• The Tribunal directed that clearance of site by way of
disposal of transfer should be strictly as per the
Hazardous and other Wastes (Management and
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
Stubble Burning and consequent
Air Pollution
Smt. Ganga Lalwani
v.
Anil K Thakur LLC

Stubble Burning and consequent Air Pollution
• Remedial action to prevent crop burning resulting in
air pollution particularly in the NCR region has been
subject matter of consideration before the NGT for
the last more than 6 years.
• The Tribunal noted with dismay that the steps taken
Anil K Thakur LLC
were inadequate and did not provide for ground

checking and vigilance and extinguishing of illegal
fires.
• Preventive remedies of communicating with the
farmers the disadvantages of burning were also
found unsatisfactory and ineffective.
Stubble Burning and consequent Air Pollution
• The Tribunal noted that there was no effective

incentive mechanism.
• Accordingly the Tribunal directed the Central
Government as well as the States to place on the
Anil K Thakur LLC
respective websites the date of fire incidents,

responsible officers for the subject for the entire
area and action taken for failures on a daily basis
to continuously monitor the situation.
On the issue of Noise Pollution
Hardeep Singh &Ors.
v.
SDMC &Ors.,
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The subject matter for consideration before the

Tribunal was the failure of statutory authorities in
Delhi in controlling noise pollution as per the
mandate of Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Anil K Thakur LLC
Control) Rules, 2000.

• The grievance of the applicants was that despite
the orders of the Tribunal, unsatisfactory state of
affairs continued.
• The Tribunal observed with dismay that despite specific
directions, requisite equipments for sound monitoring
were not procured, monitoring stations were not set
up, no satisfactory data about the action taken against
by authorities was prepared by the statutory
authorities entrusted with the enforcement of law.
• Accordingly, taking cognizance of report of CPCB that
Anil K Thakur LLC
compensation be imposed for violation by using

equipments assessed at 10-25% cost of such
equipment.
• The Tribunal directed CPCB to lay down stringent
compensation for tampering with sound limiters also in
order to ensure that the same is not resorted to and to
revise the compensation for bursting of crackers for
different classes of defaulters.
• The Tribunal also directed that a dedicated

telephone line with recording facility and a
dedicated online grievance redressal portal for
Anil K Thakur LLC
redressal of noise pollution related grievance

be developed by Delhi Police and public
awareness in this regard be created.
Air Pollution in Non- Attainment Cities
News item published
in
"The Times of India"
authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan titled
Anil K Thakur LLC
"NCAP with multiple timelines to clean air in 102

cities to be released around August 15",
Original Application No. 681/2018;

• NGT dealt with the subject of remedial measures to be
adopted to enforce the Ambient Air Quality Standards
with reference to provisions of the Air Act and
Environment Protection Act in cities classified as non-
attainment cities based on monitoring of ambient air
quality.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The Tribunal observed that the major problem was

remediation of legacy waste dump sites in the country,
releasing emissions in the ambient air and also causing
incidents of fire, further polluting the environment.
• Accordingly, the Tribunal directed bio-remediation of
such dump sites. The Tribunal also directed
development of Emergency Response System to be
placed in public domain.
• The Tribunal directed for installation of Ambient

Air Quality Monitoring Stations within one year
which would monitor the air quality on all 12
notified parameters under the Air Act.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• On default it was directed that the State

Pollution Control Boards would be liable to pay
compensation at Rupees 5 lakhs per month
starting from 01.01.2021.
Coastal Water Pollution
Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
v.
Union of India &Ors.,
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The Tribunal dealt with the issue of formulating an
Action Plan to restore coastal water quality along
the Indian coastal areas. Reliance was placed on
report of CPCB "Classification of Indian Coastal and
Conflicts" referring to marine pollution by sewage
Anil K Thakur LLC
and other discharge in violation of environmental

laws.
• It was observed that coastal areas are critically
polluted on account of dumping of sewage and
waste. Over 80% of marine pollution is from land-
based sources- industrial, agricultural and urban.
• The Tribunal noted that report of CPCB is incomplete
about the status of compliance with regard to norms
of pollution laws in all the coastal areas, particularly
with regard to discharge of untreated industrial and
Municipal effluents and solid waste.
• Accordingly, the Tribunal directed CPCB to submit a
comprehensive Status Report with regard to coastal
Anil K Thakur LLC
pollution by way of classification of coastal areas into

priorities I- V.
• In view of lack of accurate and scientific data, the
Tribunal directed all the State Pollution Control Boards
of coastal States/UTs to provide relevant information
to CPCB when then 1 month failing which they would
be liable to pay Rupees 10 lakhs per month till
compliance.
Compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules
at Railway Stations
Saloni Singh & Anr.

v.
Anil K Thakur LLC

at Railway Stations
• The Tribunal considered the issue of non-compliance
of Plastics Waste and Solid Waste Management Rules,
preventing discharge of effluents, management of
water at Railway Stations, compartments and tracks
and removal of encroachments causing environment
degradation.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The Tribunal had earlier directed preparation of

remedial Action Plan by 30.11.2018 to be notified on
website for comments of general public and be
finalized before 31.03.2019.
• The CAG was directed to conduct Performance Audit
on or before 30.06.2019 on the issue of solid waste,
plastic waste and open defecation along railway
tracks.
at Railway Stations
• The Tribunal while reviewing the compliance of
the orders directed the CPCB to take into account
the process of implementation of Action Plans of
Railways for all major stations and evaluate the
Anil K Thakur LLC
same and file compliance report with regard to

compliance of Section 25 of the Water Act and
Section 21 of the Air Act of such railway stations
before 31.03.2020.
Remedial action for 351 polluted
river stretches in India
News item published
in
"The Hindu"authored by Shri Jacob Koshy titled
Anil K Thakur LLC
"More River Stretches are now critically

polluted :CPCB“
Remedial action for 351 polluted river stretches
in India
• The proceedings for cleaning of 351 polluted river
stretches were initiated on the basis of a news item
in 'The Hindu' under the heading "More river
stretches are now critically polluted" authored by
Anil K Thakur LLC
Jacob Koshy which stated that 351 polluted river

stretches have been identified by the Central
Pollution Control Board as being critically polluted.
• The Tribunal had earlier passed directions for
preparation for Action Plans for restoration and
rejuvenation of the polluted river stretches.
Remedial action for 351 polluted river stretches
in India
• The Tribunal while reviewing the progress directed
that all steps proposed in the Action Plans including
completion of setting up of STPs and their
commissioning be done till 31.03.2021, in default of
which compensation assessed at Rs. 10 lakhs per
Anil K Thakur LLC
month per Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) would be

payable.
• The Tribunal further directed that monitoring may
be done by the Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs at
the State Level and by Secretary, Ministry of Jal
Shakti with the assistance of National Mission for
Clean Ganga(NMCG) and CPCB.
Plastic Waste Management
Central Pollution Control Board
v.
State of Andaman & Nicobar &Ors.,
Anil K Thakur LLC
Execution Application No. 13/2019,

• The Tribunal vide its order considered the issue of
implementation of Plastic Waste Management
Rules 2016 and directions issued by CPCB to
implement the thickness norms for carry bags,
constitution of squads for vigilance, preventing
littering of plastic waste in public places, submission
Anil K Thakur LLC
of Annual Reports and Action Plan for management

and quantification and characterization and every
city and town of all states.
• The Tribunal ordered that national framework for
Extended Producers Liability be finalized and
enforced within 3 months and report be furnished
by the MoEF&CC to the Tribunal.
• CPCB was also directed to give its report for
compensation regime.
• The Tribunal additionally directed for preparation of an
institutional mechanism to ensure that no unregistered
plastic manufacturing recycling unit is in operation and
no plastic bag of less than 50 microns thickness be
Anil K Thakur LLC
manufactured, stocked and sold and used in the cities,

special environment squads be set up to oversee that
no littering of plastic waste takes place at historical
religious and public places and no burning of plastic
waste takes place in the open.
• The States have been directed to submit their
compliance report filling which compensation of
Rupees 10 Lakhs per quarter shall be levied by the
CPCB.
Pollution in Lakes
Court on its own Motion

v.
Anil K Thakur LLC
State of Karnataka,
Original Application No. 125/2017;
Pollution in Lakes
• The NGT considered the issue of contamination

of Bellandur, Agara and Varthur lakes at
Bengaluru on account of discharge of untreated
sewage and other effluents from
Anil K Thakur LLC
residential/commercial/industrial buildings in
violation of statutory provisions of the Water Act,
1974, particularly Section 25.
Pollution in Lakes
• The NGT noticed that the current situation was
that sewage continued to be discharged into the
lake with no plan of even immediate interim
preventive measures.
• There was large scale breach of public duties by
Anil K Thakur LLC
concerned Authorities dealing with the subject.

Illegality may not continue on account of default
or negligence of the Authorities.
• Accordingly, a Monitoring Committee was set up
to review the progress as per the order and
directions of the Tribunal till 31.03.2020.
Enforcement of environmental norms
in
running restaurants/ hotels/ motels/ banquets
etc.
Westend Green Farms Society

Anil K Thakur LLC
v.
Union of India &Ors,
Enforcement of environmental norms in running
restaurants/ hotels/ motels/ banquets etc.
• The Tribunal noted the violation of law on the subjects
of solid waste management, discharge of effluents,
illegal ground water extraction, ground water
contamination, emission by illegally operating diesel
generators, absence of statutory consents under the
Anil K Thakur LLC
Air and Water Act and violation of conditions of

consent wherever such consent had been granted, by
the restaurants/hotels/motels/banquets in
Mahipalpur and Rajori areas in Delhi.
• The Tribunal also considered the issue of absence of
Rain Water Harvesting System, excess noise pollution,
illegal parking and encroachments.
• The Tribunal in view of Guidelines prepared by CPCB
covering requirement of monitoring mechanism,
• Action Plan suggested by Urban Development
Department for compiling data of functions held on
installation of CCTV cameras,
Anil K Thakur LLC
• GPS system in garbage collection vans,

• regulating sides of gatherings as per the capacity of
areas,
• fire safety devices steps,
• control traffic congestion
• inter alia directed that enforcing the requirement of
consent to establish should be the starting point for
commission of the project rather than last in the
governance chain.
• The project proponent at such areas must file their
Annual Environment Statement in terms of Rule 14 of
the EP Rules.
• The Tribunal for the director that stringent norms be
worked out for controlling and regulating parking of
vehicles used by organisations and guests in functions
Anil K Thakur LLC
as well as parking of vehicles generally on roads and

public spaces at into air pollution.
• It was further held that use of DG systems must be
fitted with noise limiters and data loggers and be
operated within soundproof halls within prescribed
noise limit without its effect be felt outside.
• The Tribunal clarified that the owner of the property
will be liable for any default.
Manoj Mishra v. Delhi Development
Authority, Original Application No. 65 of 2016
Art of living case on Yamuna Floodplain
• Facts
• Founded in 1981 by Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, The Art of
Living Foundation is a Non-Governmental
Anil K Thakur LLC
Organization working on humanitarian and

educational matters.
• In March 2016, this organization staged a three-day
cultural event – the World Cultural Festival from 11th
to 13th March, at the Yamuna floodplains in New
Delhi. It was organized to celebrate 35 years of the
organization since its inception.
• The Yamuna banks are considered to be
ecologically very fragile but the arrangements for
the festival were stupendous.
• A 7-acre stage, claimed to be the largest in the
world, and capable of accommodating 35,000
Anil K Thakur LLC
musicians and dancers, was set up. New dirt

tracks were built, in addition to 650 portable
toilets spread over a thousand acres of area.
• According to the organizers, the event was
attended by 35 lakh people and over 20,000
international guests.
• A petition was filed on 8th February 2016 before the
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, being
Original Application (OA) No 65 of 2016 by Sri Manoj
Mishra, a retired officer of the Indian Forest Service against
the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Several
miscellaneous petitions were clubbed with this OA and the
Anil K Thakur LLC
respondent parties, other than DDA, was the Art of Living

(AOL) Foundation, the Ministry of Environment & Forest
and Climate Change.
• Shri Mishra had earlier filed a written complaint against
the respondents to the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 11th
December, 2015 and later filed the present application
before the NGT.
ISSUES RAISED
• Whether Art of Living has caused irreversible
environmental damage to the flood plains of
Yamuna?
• Whether Art of Living is liable to pay any damages
Anil K Thakur LLC
as a consequence of such adverse environmental

impact and to restore the site to its pre-existing
condition?
RELEVANT LAWS
• Section 33A of the Water Prevention and
Control of Pollution Act, 1974
• Section 6 of the Environmental Act, 1986.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Sections 15 and 17 of the National Green

Tribunal Act, 2010.
Judgement
• The judgement alleged through the petitioners that the
arrangements for conducting the occasion had already
destroyed and degraded the ecologically fragile
surroundings of the Yamuna Floodplains and for this
reason, it must now no longer be allowed to be held and
the groups be fined.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• The Tribunal asked to pay a fine of Rs 5 crore. It held the Art

of Living Foundation accountable for the damages brought
on to the Yamuna floodplains which might be below the
constrained jurisdictions of the DDA. The basis might be
chargeable for healing/restitution of the floodplains
(constrained to the place that turned into allocated to it) to
the circumstance that existed earlier than the occasion.
Judgement
• The Tribunal, at the same time, as pulling up DDA for
failing to carry out its statutory function with inside
the safety of the surroundings, did now no longer
impose any greater great at the authority, because
the tribunal was satisfied as it had already
determined to construct Biodiversity Parks and to
enhance the environmental circumstance of the place
Anil K Thakur LLC
from their funds.

• Interestingly, in its judgement, the tribunal did not
determine the right of the organizers to organize the
occasion. It focused on the pollutants that resulted
from the occasion and the way this trouble might be
settled according to the law.
Topic-4.6
Powers & Functions of NGT
Anil K Thakur LLC
About
National Green Tribunal (NGT)
• NGT, or National Green Tribunal, is a specialized quasi-
judicial body that looks after the range of environmental
disputes that also encompasses multi-disciplinary issues.
• It was formed in October 2010 under the National Green
Tribunal Act.
• NGT was established after replacing the then National
Anil K Thakur LLC
Environment Appellate Authority. India has become the

3rd country after Australia and New Zealand to set up a
specialized environmental tribunal.
• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) gets inspiration from
the Fundamental Right (Article 21), and it is in consonance
with the philosophies of the Directive Principles of State
Policies (DPSPs: Article 48A), the Fundamental Duty
(Article 51-A (g)) of the India Constitution.
About NGT
• The National Green Tribunal has been
established on 18.10.2010 under the National
Green Tribunal Act 2010 for effective disposal of
cases relating to environmental protection and
conservation of forests and other natural
Anil K Thakur LLC
resources and giving compensation for damages

to affected persons.
• It is a specialized body equipped with the
necessary expertise to handle environmental
disputes.
Objectives of NGT
• Some of the major objectives of the National
Green Tribunal are:
• Expeditious and effective disposal of cases
related to the conservation and protection of the
environment, forests, and other natural
Anil K Thakur LLC
resources.
• To provide compensation and relief for any
damages caused to both persons and properties.
• Another objective of NGT is to handle a plethora
of environmental disputes involving multi-
disciplinary issues.
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Sec 6. Appointment of Chairperson, Judicial Member
and Expert Member. –
• 1. Subject to the provisions of section 5, the
Chairperson, Judicial Members and Expert Members
of the Tribunal shall be appointed by the Central
Government.
• 2. The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Central
Anil K Thakur LLC
Government in consultation with the Chief Justice

of India.
• 3. The Judicial Members and Expert Members of
the Tribunal shall be appointed on the
recommendations of such Selection Committee and
in such manner as may be prescribed.
Functions of NGT
• The Tribunal's dedicated jurisdiction in
environmental matters and help reduce the
burden of litigation in the higher courts.
• The Tribunal is mandated to endeavour for
disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6
Anil K Thakur LLC
months of filing of the same.

• Initially, the NGT was proposed to be set up at five
places of sittings and would follow circuit
procedure for making itself more accessible.
• New Delhi is the Principal Place of sitting of the
Tribunal and Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata & Chennai are
other four place of sitting of the Tribunal.
Structure of NGT
• Principal Bench of the NGT-New Delhi
• Pune (Western Zone Bench)
• Bhopal (Central Zone Bench)
• Chennai (Southern Bench) and
• Kolkata (Eastern Bench).
Anil K Thakur LLC
• Each Bench has a specified geographical jurisdiction

covering several States in a region.
• There is also a mechanism for circuit benches.
• For example, the Southern Zone bench, which is
based in Chennai, can decide to have sittings in
other places like Bangalore or Hyderabad.
Structure of NGT
• The Chairperson of the NGT is a sitting/retired Judge

of the Supreme Court, Head Quartered in Delhi.
• Other Judicial members are sitting/retired Judges of
High Courts.
• Each bench of the NGT will comprise of at least one
Anil K Thakur LLC
Judicial Member(Sitting/Rtd. Judge of the High

Court) and one Expert Member.
• Expert members should have a professional
qualification and a minimum of 15 years experience
in the field of environment/forest conservation and
related subjects.
What is the Tribunal’s composition?
• The Tribunal has a presence in five zones- North,
Central, East, South and West.
• The Principal Bench is situated in the North
Zone, headquartered in Delhi.
• The Central zone bench is situated in Bhopal,
East zone in Kolkata, South zone in Chennai and
Anil K Thakur LLC
West zone in Pune.

• The Tribunal is headed by the Chairperson who
sits in the Principal Bench and has at least ten
but not more than twenty judicial members and
at least ten but not more than twenty expert
members.
Powers of NGT: What sort of cases are heard in NGT?
• Any person seeking relief and compensation for
environmental damage involving subjects in the legislations
mentioned in Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act,
2010 may approach the Tribunal.
The statutes in Schedule I are:
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act,
Anil K Thakur LLC
1977;
• The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
• The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
• The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
• The Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases involving a
substantial question relating to environment.
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Chapter III Jurisdiction, Powers and Proceedings of the Tribunal
Section 14. Tribunal to settle disputes. –
• 1. The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a
substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement
of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such
question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified
in Schedule I.
• 2. The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions
referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order
Anil K Thakur LLC
thereon.
• 3. No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be
entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six
months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute
first arose:
• Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said
period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty
days.
Are decisions of the Tribunal final?
• The Tribunal has powers to review its own decisions.
• If this fails, the decision can be challenged before the
Supreme Court within ninety days.
Sec 22 of The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Appeal to Supreme Court. –
• Any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of
Anil K Thakur LLC
the Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the Supreme Court,

within ninety days from the date of communication of the
award, decision or order of the Tribunal, to him, on any
one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:Provided that the Supreme
Court may entertain any appeal after the expiry of ninety
days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from preferring the appeal.
• This means that any violations pertaining only to above
stated laws, or any order / decision taken by the
Government under these laws can be challenged before
the NGT.
• Importantly, the NGT has not been vested with powers to
hear any matter relating to the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and various laws
Anil K Thakur LLC
enacted by States relating to forest preservation etc.

• Therefore, specific and substantial issues related to these
laws cannot be raised before the NGT.
• You will have to approach the State High Court or the
Supreme Court through a Writ Petition (PIL) or file an
Original Suit before an appropriate Civil Judge where the
project that you intend to challenge is located.
Speedy disposal and increased access to justice:
• Expeditious decision making is beneficial not only to
litigants but also enables prevention of potential
environmental damage instead of compensating for
damage already caused.
• By serving the orders and seeking responses by email
Anil K Thakur LLC
only saves time and enables the Tribunal to take

decisions in a time bound manner.
• In the absence of full strength of judicial and expert
members in regional benches of the Tribunal situated in
Chennai, Pune, Bhopal and Kolkata, the Principal Bench
in New Delhi is hearing applications from other
jurisdictions remotely by video conferencing to meet
the needs of the litigants.
Procedure and powers of Tribunal
• Sec 19 NGT Act 2010 Procedure and powers of
Tribunal.
• (1) The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure
laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural
Anil K Thakur LLC
justice.
• (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Tribunal
shall have power to regulate its own procedure.
• (3) The Tribunal shall also not be bound by the rules
of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (1 of 1872).
Sec 19 (4) The Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this
Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of
1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document
from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
Anil K Thakur LLC
(f) reviewing its decision;

(g) dismissing an application for default or deciding its ex parte;
(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by
it ex parte;
(i) pass an interim order (including granting an injunction or stay) after providing the
parties concerned an opportunity to be heard, on any application made or appeal filed
under this Act;
(j) pass an order requiring any person to cease and desist from committing or causing any
violation of any enactment specified in Schedule I;
(k) any other matter which may be prescribed.
• Sec 19 (5) All proceedings before the Tribunal
shall be deemed to be the judicial proceedings
within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and
228 for the purposes of section 196 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the
Anil K Thakur LLC
Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for

the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974).
Tribunal to apply certain principles
• Sec 20 Tribunal to apply certain principles. –

• The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or
decision or award, apply the principles of
Anil K Thakur LLC
sustainable development, the precautionary

principle and the polluter pays principle.
Few Landmark Judgments of NGT
• In Ms Betty C. Alvares vs The State of Goa and Ors., the National Green
Tribunal laid down that without regard to the question of nationality, a
person can file a case related to an environmental issue.
• In the Almitra H Patel Vs Union of India, the NGT instructed states to
implement Solid Waste Management Rules and stopped the open burning
of waste.
• In 2012, Prafulla Samantra and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors. National
Green Tribunal suspended the clearance provided to the South Korean
steel maker, POSCO, to set up a 12 million-tonne steel plant in Odisha.
Anil K Thakur LLC
• In the Save Mon Federation Vs Union of India case, it suspended a

₹6,400-crore hydro project to save a bird’s habitat.
• In Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Alaknanda hydro
Power Co. Ltd. & Ors., the NGT has accepted the concept of ‘polluter pays’
and made a private entity prone to pay for the damage.
• In the Art of living case (Manoj Mishra v. Delhi Development Authority,
Original Application No. 65 of 2016) on Yamuna Floodplain, the National
Green Tribunal asked them to pay a fine of Rs 5 crore. It also held the Art
of Living Foundation accountable for the damages caused to the Yamuna
floodplain.
FEW LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
• Ms. Betty C. Alvares v. The State of Goa and Ors.

Misc Application No. 32/2014(WZ)
• Even a Foreign National Can Approach the NGT.
Anil K Thakur LLC
Almitra H. Patel & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. JT
1999 (10) SC 332
• A complete prohibition on open burning of

waste on lands.
• Absolute segregation has been made
Anil K Thakur LLC
mandatory in waste to energy plants and

landfills should be used for depositing inert
waste only and are subject to bio-stabilization
within 6 months.
Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti & Anr.
v.
Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/GT/0101/2016
• NGT has directly relied on the principle of

‘polluter pays’ and made a private entity liable
Anil K Thakur LLC
to pay compensation, making them subject to

a code of environmental jurisprudence.
Samit Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors.
1999 (3) SCALE 166
• This case was held to involve questions of
public importance and significance of
environmental jurisprudence and ‘Polluter
Anil K Thakur LLC
Pays’ principle was invoked.

Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. vs. Union
of India and Ors. MANU/GT/0150/2016
• The Tribunal very proactively suspended the

Environmental Clearance granted to the
Project and Directed the Environmental
Anil K Thakur LLC
Appraisal Committee to make a fresh appraisal

of the proposal for environmental clearance
grant and asked the Ministry of Environment
and Forest to make a separate study on the
protection of the said bird.
inprotected.com

Assignment 1683198712785

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Assignment 1683198712785

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 1683198712785

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, Public

By: Anil K Thakur (Asst. Prof.)

• ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ is also known as ‘Extended

• It should be mentioned that in environmental law, it

the polluter pays principle to allocate costs of

• The majority of OECD members are high-income economies with a very

budget of €386 million in 2019.

• Part II Budgets, meanwhile, cover programmes that are of

• The OECD initiative was the result of demands

apply the polluter pays principle.

• Through the lens of international law, the PPP is

• The Supreme Court of India inexplicitly applied the

highly industrialized economy’.

prove before the court of law that he suffered because of

of reversing the damaged ecology.

deep into the bowels of the earth.

• Looking at the widespread ramification of the

degradation viz., of the soil, underground water

(NEERI) in the year 1994 be made a basis to

to repair the damage caused to the land and

• These principles have been accepted as a part of the

• In the same case, the court also ordered for the

and benefits from the erring industries.

the ‘Environment Relief Fund’ which shall be

7-A (3) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

• The court has always come to the rescue of

• therefore, the closure of the National Environment

• The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of

scientific information is lacking.

protection of the environment and unnecessary

Protection of the Ozone Layer.

emission of substances which depleted the

• At the Third Sea Conference 1994, the parties

was introduced in the year 1992.

• In the year 1992, the Helsinki Convention on the

• The signatories to this Convention decided to be

principle and the climate change issue in

• It allows for five key elements that can prevent

as well as general public, share their

environment, including the alternative of doing

reflected in the initial price.

• The Indian Judiciary actively supports the

the cause of environmental degradation.

that the Precautionary Principle is a part of

environmental damage, the onus of proof is on the

taking caution and prevent environmental harm

them for the reasonable public use.

• Who owns the Earth and its resources?

• Across continents and spanning centuries, a

“By the law of nature these things are common to all

was the part of their established law.

held available for use by the general public;

air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially

• The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the

• The PTD has developed in India through several

of the general public in relation to the natural