S.

Jagannath v Union of India, 1997

In a landmark judgment in S. Jagannath v Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 87], the Court referred
to expert reports to identify the adverse impacts of coastal pollution caused by non-traditional
and unregulated prawn farming. It held ‘[t]he purpose of the CRZ Notification is to protect the
ecologically fragile coastal areas and to safeguard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the sea
coast. The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms right on the sea coast … is per se
hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the aesthetic
uses of the sea coast’. The Court decided that prawn farming industries were prohibited in the
coastal regulation zones under the CRZ Notification 1991 and their functioning was in violation
of various other laws. It, however, excluded traditional systems of aquaculture from this
prohibition.

Banwasi Seva Ashram V. State Of UP And Ors.

The state cannot interfere in the livelihoods of tribal which depends on forests. The court also
cannot neglect the requirement of electricity in the country which would be fulfilled by the
Thermal Power Plant. There must be sustainable development.

World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India

In this case, the Supreme Court had to judge whether or not there was a necessity for the
reintroduction of the Asiatic lion, an endangered species which is threatened of extinction.

The plaintiffs seek from the Supreme Court an order that would force the State of Gujarat to
create a second home for Asiatic lions at Kuno. The defendant, the State of Gujarat, motivated it
refusal by explaining that there are already Asiatic lion sanctuaries in the forest of Gir and that
there was no need to create a new one in Kuno. Also the State of Gujarat pointed out that the
reintroduction of the Asiatic lions in Kuno would create some conflict with the local
communities, especially with the farmers. Finally, the defendant justified its position by
explaining that fighting poaching should be a priority instead of creating new sanctuaries.

The supreme Court held that re-introduction of the Asiatic lion in Kuno was a priority that
cannot be delayed if we want to protect this species from extinction. The court considered that
the fact that the Asiatic lion had been historically present in Kuno and that there was an
important prey ratio is a guarantee that the re-introduction should take place there. As a result,
the court requested the Ministry of Environment and Forest to issue an order to re-introduce the
Asiatic lion in Kuno within a six month period.

Principle Evolved- The ecological balance of environment must be maintained.

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Case / Oleum Gas Leakage
Case]

The rule of Absolute Liability which is a more stringent rule than Strict Liability was laid down
in this case. This case is more popular as the oleum gas leakage case.

Shri Ram Food and fertilizers Industry is a subsidiary of the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. Located in a
thickly populated area of Delhi. On 4th December 1985, there was a leakage of oleum gas from
the Sulphuric acid plant resulting in the death of an advocate and several injuries to other
persons. Again, on 6th December 1985, there was a minor leakage of Oleum gas from the same
plant. Against a complaint under Sec 133 Cr.P.C., the District Magistrate directed the
management of Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry to close the unit and to show cause the
reason within seven days in writing. The petitioner Mr. M. C. Mehta files a PIL u/A 32 of Indian
Constitution. The petitioner in his petition requested the Court to direct the Government to take
necessary steps to avoid such leakages from the industries engaged in dangerous and hazardous
manufacturing processes. He also reminded the Court of the recent incident of the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy and prayed the Court to direct the management to shift these industries somewhere far
from the city.

The issues before the Supreme Court in this case were:

Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not? If not, what measures are require to be
taken to prevent the leakages, explosion, air and water pollution? Whether there are any safety
devices existing in the Plant or not?

The Supreme Court after great debate and discussion, decided to permit Shri Ram Food and
Fertilizers Industry to restore its operations. The Court observed that although such industries are
dangerous, they are very essential for the economic and social progress of the country.

The court directed the management to deposit in the court Rs. 20 lakhs as security for payment of
compensation to the victims. Further, all the recommendations of the expert committees are to be
complied by the Industry and safety equipment are to be installed at the first instance. The court
further directed the industries to establish and develop a green belt of 1-5 kms in width around
such industries. The court appreciated the petitioner Mr. M.C. Mehta for filing a number of PIL
and ordered the Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the costs. The court
directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court.

A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)

In this connection it pointed out the importance of the precautionary principle in environmental
law. It was appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity
that was potentially harmful to the environment.