英语论文网

explicitly mentioned in the concerned statute. There have also been occasions when the judiciary has prioritized the environment over development, when the situation demanded an immediate and specific policy structure. [28]

The Precautionary Principle

The “Precautionary Principle” means that the State Government and the concerned statutory authorities must anticipate prevent and attack causes of environmental degradation. Beginning with Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India [29] , the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the precautionary principle as a principle of Indian environmental law. More recently, in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu [30] , the Court discussed the development of the precautionary principle.

Furthermore, in the Narmada case [31] , the Court explained that “When there is a state of uncertainty due to the lack of data or material about the extent of damage or pollution likely to be caused, then, in order to maintain the ecology balance, the burden of proof that the said balance will be maintained must necessarily be on the industry or the unit which is likely to cause pollution.”

In the Taj Trapezium Case [32] , applying the precautionary approach the Supreme Court ordered a number of industries in the area surrounding the Taj Mahal to relocate or introduce pollution abatement measures in order to protect the Taj from deterioration and damage.

The “Polluter Pays” Principle

The “Polluter Pays” principle states that the polluter not only has an obligation to make good the loss but shall bear the cost of rehabilitating the environment to its original state. In operation, this principle is usually visible alongside the precautionary principle.

The Supreme Court has come to sustain a position where it calculates environmental damages not on the basis of a claim put forward by either party, but through an examination of the situation by the Court, keeping in mind factors such as the deterrent nature of the award. However, it held recently that the power under Article 32 to award damages, or even exemplary damages to compensate environmental harm, would not extend to the levy of a pollution fine. [33] The “polluter pays” rule has also been recognized as a fundamental objective of government policy to prevent and control pollution.

The Court has ruled:

“Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is based upon the very nature of the activity carried on.” [34]

Doctrine of Public Trust

The Supreme Court has accepted the doctrine of public trust which rests on the premise that certain natural resources like air, water, seas are means for general use and cannot be restricted to private ownership. These resources are a gift of nature and the State, as a trustee thereof, is duty bound to protect them. [35]

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [36] , the Court held that the state, as a trustee of all natural resources, was under a legal duty to protect them, and that the resources were meant for public use and could not be transferred to private ownership.

All these principles and doctrine are