ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

IN INDIA
UNIT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN BRITISH ERA

• Indian Penal Code of 1860.

Section 277 of the same provided that anyone who knowingly corrupts the water of any
public spring or reservoir, which makes the water unfit for the purpose of ordinary
use, shall be punished with either a simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending to
3 months or fine up to hundred rupees. In addition to this, the code also provides provisions
for deteriorating the atmosphere, thereby making it virulent for the health of people at large,
shall be punishable with five hundred.
OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY……..
• Section 268. Public nuisance.—A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of
an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the
people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause
injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A
common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.
• Section 269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.—Whoever
unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to
be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with
both.
CONTN…..

• Section 278

Making atmosphere noxious to health.—Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place
so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the
neighborhood or passing along a public way, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees.
• Section 288.

Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down or repairing buildings.—Whoever, in pulling down
or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is
sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of
any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
CONTN…

• Section 289.

Negligent conduct with respect to animal.—Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such
order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger
to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• Section 290.
Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for.—Whoever commits a public
nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may
extend to two hundred rupees.
CONTN…

Criminal Procedure Code 1868

• Section 133 Conditional Removal of Public Nuisance
Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive
Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government on receiving the
report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he
thinks fit, considers—
(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or
from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or
CONTN….

(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation or the keeping of any goods or merchandise;
is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence
such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise
should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or
(c) that the construction of any building, or the disposal of any substance, as is likely to
occasion conflagration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or
(f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of,
CONTN…

• Such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or
nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or
owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, lank, well or excavation,
or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order such nuisance.
• if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to
him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter
provided, why the order should not be made absolute.
• No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any civil Court.

Section 144
• It empowers an executive magistrate to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended
danger.
 CASE LAW
• Municipal Council, Ratlam (Petitioner) v. Vardhichand and others (1980)- Section 133
There was an industry causing pollution in the nearby vicinity. It was ordered that the municipal shall order
necessary steps for preventing pollution, and the municipal said it does not have enough fund. The court herein
held that an excuse of not having funds to stop pollution cannot be accepted while watching the pollution
happening. Hence Sec-133 was invoked.
• Wing Commander Utpal Barbara v. State of Assam (1999) – Section 144 Total ban on use of polythene bags
CONTN…

• Indian Forest Act, 1865

The exploitation of forest resources were inserted in the first forest law. This provision within the Act
depicted an implied state monopoly over the forests, on the contrary, the customary usage of forests
by the villagers was not considered as a matter of right.
• The Shore Nuisance (Bombay and Colaba) Act 1853
The Collector of Land Revenue was entrusted with the power to direct a party to remove the presence
of nuisance anywhere below the high water mark to get it abated or removed him. This Act was
formulated to manage the waste materials discharged from the coastal areas of Bombay and Colaba
area, from the different industries functioning in those areas.
CONTN…

• The Indian Forest Act of 1927

The Act incorporated land using policy, where Britishers could acquire any forest property, village
forests and Other Common Property Resources. Section 26(1) of the Act made it punishable if any
individual contravenes these set of rules made by State Government, and pollutes the water of a forest
area.

The Serais Act, 1867

The Act enjoined upon a keeper of a Sarai/ Inn to keep a certain standard of water which would be fit
for consumption by “persons and use of it by the animals” the standard would be in alignment with the
satisfaction of the District Magistrate or his nominees. Failure to abide by the mentioned standards
would give rise to liability of rupees twenty.
CONTN…

• Oriental Gas Company Act, 1857

This law imposed penalty and restricted corrupting the water, by the Oriental Gas Company.
It authorised an individual to dig up the ground and inspect pipes and channels for the water
of the company and to discover any leakage thereby causing water pollution.
The fine charged was Rs 1000, for contaminating the water and upon the continuation of the
offence Rs 500 per day was determined.
CONTN…

• The Fairways Act, 1881

The Fairways Act, 1881 along with the Indian Ports Act, 1908 and Inland Vessels Act, 1917 also
dealt with pollution of water.
• Easement Act 1882
It safeguarded the riparian owners against any unreasonable pollution by an upstream officer.
The illustrations (f), (h) and (j) of Section 7 of the Act deals with the pollution of waters.
Section 28(d) of the Act permits prescriptive authority to pollute the water, however not an
absolute right.
CONTN…

• Elephants Preservation Act, 1879

Regulated killing of elephants for in defense of himself or some other person; (b) when
such elephant is found injuring houses or cultivation or upon, or in the immediate vicinity
of, any main public road or any railway or canal; or (c) as permitted by a license granted
under this Act. Declared very wild elephant captured, and the tusks of every wild elephant
killed by any person not licensed under this Act, as the property of Government.
CONTN….

Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912

Act declares the whole year or any part thereof to be a close time throughout the whole or any part
of its territories for any kind of wild bird or animal to which this Act applies, or for female or
immature wild birds or animals of such kind; and, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained,
during such close time, and within the areas specified in such notification, it shall be unlawful---
(a) to capture any such bird or animal, or to kill any such bird or animal which has not been
captured before the commencement of such close time (b) to sell or buy, or offer to sell or buy or to
possess, any such bird or animal which has not been captured or killed before the commencement
of such close time, or the flesh thereof (c) if any plumage has been taken from any such bird
captured or killed during such close time, to sell or buy, or to offer to sell or buy, or to offer to sell
or buy, or to possess, such plumage.
POST-INDEPENDENCE LAWS

Constitution of India
Fundamental Rights: Article 19 (1) (g), 21
Right to Constitutional Remedies: Article 32, Article 226
Directive Principles of State Policy: Article 37, 39 (B), 42, 47, 48, 48A, 49, 51
Fundamental Duties: Article 51 A (g), 51 A (J)
International Agreements: Article 253
42nd Amendment Act, 1976: Article 48 A, 51 A, Seventh Schedule List III- Entries17 A Forests, 17 B
Protection of wild animals and birds.
PRESENT SCENARIO

• *Water pollution – Water Act, 1974

• *Air Pollution – Air Act, 1981
• *Environment Protection – Environment Protection Act, 1986
• *Wildlife-Wild life Protection Act, 1972
• *Forest Conservation – Indian Forest Act, 1927, Forest Conservation Act, 1982
• *Biodiversity-Biological Diversity Act 2002
• *National Green Tribunal
• *Animal Welfare-Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

• The Ministry of Environment and Forests

• Central Pollution Control Board
Major Policies
• National Forest Policy, 1988
• National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and Development, 1992
• Policy Statement for Abatement of Pollution 1992
• National Agriculture Policy, 2000
• National Population Policy, 2000
• National Water Policy, 2002
• Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2002
• National Environment Policy, 2006
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT POLICY, 2006

• To protect and conserve critical ecological systems and resources

• To ensure equitable access to environmental resources and quality for all sections of society,
and in particular, to ensure that poor communities, which are most dependent on environmental
resources for their livelihoods, are assured secure access to these resources
• To ensure judicious use of environmental resources to meet the needs and aspirations of the
present and future generations
• To integrate environmental concerns into policies, plans, programs, and projects for economic
and social development.
• To ensure efficient use of environmental resources in the sense of reduction in their use per unit
of economic output, to minimize adverse environmental impacts.
CONTN…

• To apply the principles of good governance (transparency, rationality, accountability,

reduction in time and costs, participation, and regulatory independence) to the
management and regulation of use of environmental resources.
• To ensure higher resource flows, comprising finance, technology, management skills,
traditional knowledge, and social capital, for environmental conservation through
mutually beneficial multi stakeholder partnerships between local communities, public
agencies, the academic and research community, investors, and multilateral and bilateral
development partners.
CASE LAWS
• Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand (2017)
Ganga, Yamuna and tributaries were held to be legal persons and legal entities, because in Hindu Mythology a lot importance is given
to river Ganga and hence was given a legal position.

• A. Nagaraja v. Animal Welfare of India 2014 7 SCC 547

The five freedoms granted are (i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; (ii) freedom from fear and distress; (iii) freedom from
physical and thermal discomfort; (iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and (v) freedom to express normal patterns of behavior.
• People for Animals v. Md Mohazzim 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9508
This case was relating to bird’s rights. Birds while in transit were caged in such a manner that they could not faltter their wings. It was a
violation of their right of freedom.
• S.Muralidharan vs Arulmigu Suguvaneswarar Temple on 16 April, 2018
Euthnasia in animals. Court ordered that an elephant who is suffering from intolerable pain can be subjected to euthnasia. Police can
say and magistrates’s order will be final.
CONTN….

• Section 13 (3) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Destruction of suffering animals.

Any police officer above the rank of a constable or any person authorised by the State Government in this
behalf who finds any animal so diseased or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that in his
opinion it cannot be removed without cruelty, may, if the owner is absent or refuses his consent to the
destruction of the animal, forthwith summon the veterinary officer in charge of that area in which the
animal is found, and if the veterinary officer certifies that the animal is mortally injured or so severely
injured or in such a physical condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive, the police officer or the
person authorised, as the case may be, may, after obtaining orders from a Magistrate, destroy the animal
injured or cause it to be destroyed in such manner as may be prescribed. An order of the Magistrate to
destroy an animal is not appealable.
Sub-section (4) of Section 13 provides no appeal shall lie from any order of a Magistrate for destruction of
an animal.
• N.R. Nair and others v/s Union of India and others 2001
Employing of animal in circus. They should be rgistered as performing animals. Qualifications of the trainer
is necessary. prohibits certain kind of animals like lion, monkey etc. the decision was upheld.
• Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India and others. Writ petition (PIL) no. 43 of 2014- Uttarakhand High
Court’s decision: “entire animal kingdom as legal entity, with rights, duties & liabilities of a living
person.” animals were transported over a long period of time and during transit they were subjected to
distress. Every individual has responsibility to protect animals.
• Karnail Singh and others v State of Haryana (2019)- recognized all animals in the animal kingdom,
including avian and aquatic species, as legal entities. All citizens of the state of Haryana were declared
persons in loco parentis (in place of a parent), which will enable them to act as guardians for all
nonhuman animals within the state of Haryana.
COW SLAUGHTER

• Abdul Hakim Qureshi v. State of Bihar (1961)-a total ban on cow slaughter did not infringe on
the religious freedom of Muslims. In the context of Article 48, the Court held that directive
only applies to cows, calves and other animals which have the potential of yielding milk or
have the capacity to work as drought. Therefore, Article 48 does not envisage a prohibition on
the slaughter of all cows or cattle.
• Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar (1959) -A total ban [on cattle slaughter] was not
permissible if, under economic conditions, keeping useless bull or bullock be a burden on the
society and therefore not in the public interest.
• State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) -Article 48 envisions a total
ban on the slaughter of cows and their progeny.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

• https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html