ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION UNDER
GENERAL LAWS
UNIT 5
TOPICS

• 5.1. Provisions under the Indian Penal Code

• 5.2. Provisions under Cr. P. C.
• 5.3. Remedies under the Law of Torts
• 5.4. Class Action Suits
• 5.5. Provisions under the Constitution of India
• 5.6. Role of Judiciary; Public Interest Litigation, Widened Scope of Art. 21
• 5.7. Scope of Art.253 of the Constitution
• 5.8.NGT Act (National Green Tribunal Act, 2010)
PROVISIONS UNDER IPC

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.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UNDER IPC

• 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.
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 284.

Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance.—Whoever does, with any poisonous substance,
any act in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury
to any person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any poisonous substance in his
possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such poisonous
substance, 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 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.

• Section 285.
Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible mat­ter.—Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act
so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly
or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard
against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, 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.
CASE LAWS

• Kurnool Municipality v. Civic Association 1973 it was held that municipality can be
convincted for not maintaining cleanliness of town under sec. 290.
• K. Ramakishnan v. State of Kerala1999 -268, 278, 188 ipc the Kerala hc held smoking in
any form at a public place is a public nuisance and also violative of right of life.
• Ram Baj Singh v. Babulal (1982)- section 268 IPC
• It was held that where hazardous dust from a brick grinding machine polluted the air of a
neighbouring medical practitioner consulting room the polluter was permanently
restrained from operating machine.
PROTECTION UNDER CRPC

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

• Desi Sugar Mills v. Tupsi Kahar (1926)-river pollution

• Raghunath Prasad v. The Emperor (1931)-noise pollution

• Govind Singh v. Shanti Swaroop (1979)-air pollution

• In this case the bakery owner constructed a chimney and oven and was emitting smoke on a high-way. It affected the health of the people and the oven could cause conflagration.
The court held it nuisance and declared that it affects the health, safety and convenience of the public at large. Therefore, the court ordered for the demolition of the chimney and
the oven under Section 133 CrPC.

• Municipal Council, Ratlam (Petitioner) v. Vardhichand and others (1980)- Section 133

http://www.ecolex.org:8984/server2neu.php/libcat/docs/COU/Full/En/COU-143785E.pdf

• Ram Baj Singh v. Babulal (1982)-Section 133 brick powdering mill special damage

• Krishna Gopal v. State of MP (1986) noise pollution public and private nuisance

• Wheter a boiler could be permitted to be installed in a residential locality. - The Madhaya High Court in Krishna Gopal v. State of M. P.,³ held that a boiler could not be installed for
manufacturing glucose saline in a residential locality, when it especially was difficult to obtain permission to run an ordinary flour mill without a valid license and permission from
the competent authority.

• Wing Commander Utpal Barbara v. State of Assam (1999) – Section 144 Total ban on use of polythene bags

• State of MP v. Kedia Leather and Liquor ltd. (2003)-coexistence with other legislations

• The Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd.,¹ explained the scope of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the Court the
provisions of Section 133 of the Code are in nature of preventive measures, the provisions contained in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 are not only curative but preventive and penal.
• 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
The court declared total ban on the use of polythene bags by issuing an order under S-144 of CrPC, and stated that
it is violative of trade and business. The remedy instead of ban could have been to take appropriate steps regulating
its use and disposal and to resort appropriate legislation for it.
• State of MP v. Kedia Leather and Liquor ltd. (2003)-coexistence with other legislations,
REMEDIES UNDER LAW OF TORTS

Basic conditions
• There must be a wrongful act committed by a person
• It must give rise to legal damage or actual damage
• It must be of such a nature as to give rise to a legal remedy in the form of an action for damages

Tort applicable in case of environmental pollution

• Negligence
• Nuisance
• Trespass In the case of Fairview Farms, Inc. v. Reynolds Metals Company(1959), there were airborne liquids and substances on the plaintiff’s
property which were considered to be trespass. The defendants were held liable and an injunction was not provided because the defendants
rectified their position so that no further harm is caused.
• Ram Lal vs Mustafabad Oil And Cotton Ginning(1968): It was held that when the noise level crosses a certain threshold value it should be
considered as a public nuisance. It falls under the category of noise pollution. It is a public nuisance as it causes discomfort to many at once
•  Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller S. S. Co. Pty.(1966) oil was spilt from the ships of the defendants which caused a fire and caused harm to
the plaintiffs. It happened due to the carelessness of the defendants which means that the incident was foreseeable. The defendants were held
liable..
NEGLIGENCE

• Legal duty to take due care

• Breach of duty
• Consequential damage
Cases
• Naresh Dutt Tyagi v. State of UP 1995
• In the case of Naresh Dutt Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(1993), fumes released from the pesticides leaked to
a nearby property through ventilators that resulted in the death of three children and foetus in a pregnant
woman. It was held by the court that it was a clear-cut case of negligence.
• Nitin Walia v. Union of India 2001
TORT LAW AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

STRICT LIABILITY
“the person who brings on for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do the mischief if it
escapes must keep it in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
of its escape.”
Exceptions
• Act of God
• Wrongful act of third party
• Plaintiffs own fault
• Consent of the plaintiff
• Express authority of a statute
Mukesh Textile Mills v. Subramanya Sastri 1987
 ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
“where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to any one on
account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting for example in
escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to all those who are affected by the accident and
such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability
under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher”.
Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation (1985)
A safety wire at the plant got damaged at night due to which the gas escaped. The workers and nearby people went to
the site to check and were affected immediately. The doctrine of Parens patriaae was referred. It was held that UCC
was responsible as there lot of faults in the subsidiary plant. The district court lifted he corporate veil and reduced
compensation from 3550 Cr to 250 Cr. The case went to SC and it was decided for all time settlement between the
parties after taking into lot of considerations. The amount was decided at 470 million which was sufficient.
CONTN…

Proceedings before the US Court

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Processing of Claims Act, 1985
• Doctrine of parens patriae in Mass Tort actions
• Forum non conveniens
Proceedings before the subordinate trial court
• Breach of warranty and misrepresentation for non-performance of terms under the Design Transfer
and Technical Transfer Agreements
• Suo moto direction Section 151 CPC – Rs.350 crores
CONTN..

Proceeding before Madhya Pradesh High Court

• Application of MC Mehta case
• Section 151and 9 CPC
• Lifting up of corporate veil
• 250 Crores/5500 victims
Proceedings before the Supreme Court
• Settlement 42.5 crores
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION ETC. ... VS UNION OF INDIA ETC. 1992
AIR 248

• (a) How did this Court arrive at the sum of 470 million US dollars for an over-all settlement?
• (b) Why did the Court consider this sum of 470 million US dollars as 'just, equitable and
reasonable?
• (c) Why did the Court not pronounce on certain important legal questions of far-reaching
importance said to arise in the appeals as to the principles of liability of monolithic,
economically entrenched multi- national companies operating with inherently dangerous
technologies in the developing countries of the third world - questions said to be of great
contemporary relevance to the democracies of the third- world?"
INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS
• Article 253
• Implementation of the Stockholm Declaration
• 42nd Amendment Act
• Article 51 A(g), (J), Concurrent List- Entry 17 A (Forest), 17 B(protection of wild animals and
birds), 20 A (Population control and family planning)
JUDICIAL APPROACH
• Society for the protection of Silent Valley v. Union of India (1980)
• Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP (1985)-first case on environmental issues of ecological balance –
Dehradun lime quarries case
A letter was sent to SC by RLEK regarding illegal mining operations in hills and nearby areas. The irrational mining reduced the
green cover of the hills from 70 to 10 %. Reckless mining, careless disposals, and random blasting's damaged the natural water
system. Villagers were displaced. The court held that preservation of env. And keeping eco balance unaffected is a task for citizens as
well as govt. as it is a social obligation and fundamental duty u/a 51-a . And asked rlek to pay 10,000 rs to kendra for protecting
nearby areas.
• MC Mehta v. Union of India – Shriram Gas and Fertilizers (1986) Oleum gas leak case
• Environment is a privilege provided to us to everyone residing on this earth and it is everyone’s human right to enjoy a safe and
healthy environment and it is also everybody’s duty to work for it and contribute towards its betterment. Any person who keeps any
sort of hazardous substance in its premises shall be responsible for its escape and causing damages.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India(1989) MIC
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
RIGHT TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP (1985) safeguarding the right of the people to live in
healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and
to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and environment 
• MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987)-oleum gas leak case
Environment is a privilege provided to us to everyone residing on this earth and it is everyone’s human right to
enjoy a safe and healthy environment and it is also everybody’s duty to work for it and contribute towards its
betterment. Any person who keeps any sort of hazardous substance in its premises shall be responsible for its
escape and causing damages.
• MC Mehta v. Union of India (1988)-Kanpur mahapalika case
The Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to take appropriate action under the provisions of the
Adhiniyam for the prevention of water pollution in the river. It was noted that a large number of dairies
in Kanpur were also polluting the water of the river by disposing waste in it.”
• T. Damodar Rao v. Municial Corporation, Hyderabad (1987)
The court held the state shall not proceed with the construction as the plot was reserved for a garden in the
development plan. A-21 of the constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature’s gift without
which life cannot be enjoyed.
• LK Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan (1988)
The court highlighted insanitary condition prevailing in Jaipur City. The court gave 6 months time to clean up
the city as it was mandatory and obligatory duty of municipality to clean the city and remove filth. It was
observed that keeping the city unclean and not removing filth amounts to violation of A-21 as it amounts to slow
poisoning and reducing the life of the citizen because of the hazard created.
• Attakoya Thangal v. Union of India (1990)
Right to sweet water and free air are attributes of right to life and therefore directed to reconsider whether
pumping up ground water intrusion into the coastal aquifier, hence citizens cannot be deprived of their rights.
RIGHT TO CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)-bokaro river : right to free air n water, pollution to be controlled
• Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991)-parks
Here a public park was converted into a civic amenity for nursing home and allotted to a private person for that purpose. The court held that
public park are reserved for beauty and recreation is associated with growth concept of equality and recognition of importance of common man.
It is a preservation of quality of life for the community.
• B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India (1991)-municipal solid waste in Delhi
• APCB v. MV Nayudu (1999)--- chk
•  The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least
environmentally harmful activity. It is based on Scientific uncertainity. Environmental protection should not only aim at protecting health,
property and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the
suspicion of concrete danger but also by (justified) concern or risk potential.
• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the case of displacement of the community prior relief
and rehabilitation steps take place pari-passu with the construction of the dam though for public purpose and ensure better prospects for
farmers, it cannot be said that such construction is against the spirit of Article 21 or a tort against the community.
• TN Godavarman Tirumulpad v. Union of India (2002) precautionary and S.D. are governing principles. And SD is a policy and strategy for
continued economic and social development without detriment to environment and natural resources on quality of activity and further future
development.
RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation(1986)-pavement dwellers case

The court declared depriving a person from his right to livelihood is depriving him from his life. It was made clear by the SC
that claim of the pavement dwellers was not absolute and it must be balances against the claim of pedestrians to make use of
pavements for passing and trepassing. But some alternatives site be provided to the pavement dwellers with all civic amenities
before they are removed or evicted.
• Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of UP (1987)
An important question relating to the right of the state to notify an area as reserved forest and its effect on the people already
living there. The court did not protect the right of adivasis and freed the land from the ban on dispossession of the Adivasis.
The developmental activity i.e. setting up of thermal power station, was given priority in comparison to the rights of the tribals.
• Aruna Roadrigues v. Union of India (2012)
RIGHT TO LIFE OF ENDENGERED SPECIES
• Centre for Environmental Law, WWF v. Union of India(2013)
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only the human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to
protect and preserve a specie becoming extinct, conservation and protection of environment is an inseparable part of right to
life.