英语论文网

ental harm was presumed that relevant technical expertise would be available when environmental harm was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such harm. But in the 11th Principle of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature, 1982, the emphasis shifted to the ‘Precautionary Principle’, and this was reiterated in the Rio Conference of 1992 in its Principle 15.
 
Explaining the cause for the emergence of ‘Precautionary Principle’ the Court referred Charmian Barton, who argued “ it makes sense to err on the side of caution and prevent activities that may cause serious or irreversible harm”. The Court opined that the inadequacies of science was the real basis that had led to the Precautionary Principle. It was based on the theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and prevent environmental harm which may indeed become irreversible.

The principle of precaution involved the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. The Court adopted the view that ‘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”.
 
The concept of burden of proof in environmental cases recognised in Vellore Case that ‘the onus of proof’ is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign”, was further elaborated by the Supreme Court in the Nayudu case, M. Jagannadha Rao, J. noticed, while the inadequacies of science had led to the ‘Precautionary Principle’, the said principle in its turn led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of injurious effect of the actions proposed, was placed on those who wanted to change the status quo. This is often termed as a reversal of burden of proof, because otherwise, those opposing the change would be compelled to shoulder the evidentiary burden, a procedure which is not fair. Therefore, the Court observed, “it is necessary that the party who wants to alter it, must bear this burden”.
 
The Supreme Court favours the view that if the environmental risks being run by regulatory inaction are in some way ‘uncertain but non-negligible’, then regulatory action is justified. According to the Court-
 
In such a situation, the burden of proof is to be placed on those attempting to alter the status quo. They are to discharge this burden by showing the absence of a ‘reasonable ecological or medical concern’. That is the required standard of proof. The result would be that if insufficient evidence is presented by them to alleviate concern about the level of uncertainty, then the presumption should operate in favour of environmental protection.
 
In Narmadda Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court decided the issues relating to construction of dam on Narmada river which was a part of the Sardar Sarovar Project. Explaining the new concept of burden of proof the Court held that the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and the corresponding burden of proof on the person who wants to change the status quo will ordinarily apply in a case of polluting or o本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。