[1]

Introduction
The Precautionary Principle has been adopted in many environmental
1

instruments all over the world. The principle states that if there is a risk of
severe damage to the environment absence of any scientific or conclusive proof
is not to be given as a reason for the inaction. The Precautionary Principle shifts
the burden of proof on the shoulders of the person who is arguing that the
activity he is carrying out is not harmful. The principle follows the approach of
being safe than being sorry. This principle is in contrast to the wait-and-watch
approach which is generally followed in environmental issues. The
Precautionary Principle encourages “action taking” to antedate and prevent
damage to the environment. The Precautionary Principle is one of the most
popular legal approaches in the field of environmental law today. Whereas
traditional approaches are reactive, this approach encourages “action taking” to
antedate and prevent damage to the environment. Many times, the scientific
evidence does not give any conclusive information. In such a case risk
assessment should be done and a balance should be maintained between
protection of the environment and unnecessary and extensive restrictions. In
such a scenario, Precautionary Principle is used. While applying the principle, it
is very crucial to understand the consequences of applying it.

2
Th
e

“precautionary principle” is a notion which supports taking protective action

1
[Link]
2
[Link]
 [2]

before there is complete scientific proof of a risk; that is, action should not be
delayed simply because full scientific information is lacking. The
“precautionary principle” or precautionary approach has been incorporated into
several international environmental agreements, and some claim that it is now
recognized as a general principle of international environmental law. In the
fields of food safety, plant and animal health protection, the need for taking
precautionary actions in the face of scientific uncertainty has long been widely
accepted. There may be instances when a sudden outbreak of an animal disease,
for example, is suspected of being linked to imports, and trade restrictions must
be immediately imposed while further information about the source of the
outbreak and its extent are gathered. The discipline of risk assessment, one of
the basic obligations of the SPS Agreement, was developed to guide action in
the face of incomplete knowledge about risks to health. It focuses on
probabilities of hazards occurring, and the probable consequences, because
complete knowledge is very rare. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to
scientifically prove the “safety” of a food or product, rather scientists seek
evidence of any harm. Environmental law regularly operates in areas
complicated by high levels of scientific uncertainty.

In the case of many activities that entail some change to the environment,
it is impossible to determine precisely what effects the activity will have on the
quality of the environment or on human health. Often available scientific
evidence provides us cause for concern but does not give conclusive
information. In such scenarios risk assessment compels us to strike a balance
between the need to protect health and environment on one hand, and the
foregone advantages of strict restrictions that may turn out to be unwarranted. It
is in this context the role for Precautionary Principle emerges. While deciding
the need and timing of the application of the Precautionary Principle, it is
important to clearly understand the principle and its consequences. The
Precautionary Principle is one of the most contentious principles in
contemporary International legal developments. The very fact that is, a principle
of international environmental law has been questioned by many legal scholars.
 [3]

However, this does not take away the fact that the Precautionary Principle
continues to be applied widely across sectors both internationally and
nationally. The nature and scope of its application has varied widely according
to the context and sector within which it has been applied. ‘Precautionary
Principle’ plays a significant role in determining whether developmental
process is sustainable or not.

‘Precautionary Principle’ underlies sustainable development which

requires that the developmental activity must be stopped and prevented if it
causes serious and irreversible environmental damage. The emergence of
Precautionary Principle marks a shift in the international environmental
jurisprudence- a shift from assimilative capacity principle to Precautionary
Principle
 [4]

Origin of Precautionary Principle

The origin of the precautionary principle can be traced to the 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, informally known as
the Earth Summit. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration developed at the
conference states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary
approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation.” The precautionary principle was
introduced in supersession of the “assimilative principle.” The assimilative
principle is based on the belief that scientific theories are certain and adequate
to predict the harm that may be caused to the environment and also to take
remedial action for ecological restoration whenever pollution occurs. The
assimilative principle suffered a setback with the revelation of inadequacies in
science, especially when seen in the context of the environment.
It is the inadequacies of science that have led to the origin of the
precautionary principle. It is based on the theory that it is better to err on the
side of caution and prevent environmental harm that may indeed become
irreversible. The principle involves the anticipation of environmental harm and
taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful
activity.2 This principle underlines the importance of taking precautionary
measures, despite scientific uncertainty, to pre-empt any anticipated damage to
the environment. Notably, this principle would apply where clear scientific data
is lacking. Thus, there is a presumption that where the studies clearly establish
the link between an activity and its detrimental impact on the environment, such
activity would be undoubtedly avoided.
3

3
ELR-Update Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 3, Environmental Law Principles in India, July - September 2012
 [5]

In his address to the Parliamentary

Earth Summit of the UN Conference on
Environment and Development, the Dalai
Lama of Tibet noted that “in the
seventeenth century, [Tibetan leadership]
began enacting decrees to protect the
environment and so we may have been one
of the first nations to [enforce]
environmental regulations!” The
Theravada scriptures of Buddhism provide
the earliest written sources which could
accommodate the concept of precaution.
Theravada teaches not to commit harm, the Buddha urging his followers to
refrain from ‘unwholesome action’ and monks prohibited from ‘injuring plants
and seeds’.
Undeniably, the origin of the concept of precaution may well be found in
the history of civilization. In the early stage of civilization, humans had a
holistic attitude towards nature which was regarded with sacred veneration.
Nature was revered as the provider of life and therefore exploitation of its
generosity was considered unethical. Subsequently, nature’s mystery was
unravelled by the teachings of monotheistic religions and corresponding
developments in science. This elevated the status of humans above the
4

environment. The regard to human life became primordial and gave humans the
right to exploit nature without ethical limitation. The struggle to survive and
protect human health led to the early use of the concept of precaution.
It has been suggested that the earliest formulation of the precautionary
principle in contemporary public policy can be traced in the early 1950s under
the guise of what was then called “safe minimum standard of conservation.”
Major environmental issues of the 1960s– the case of DDT (dichloro diphenyl
trichloroethane) — led environmentalists and policy makers to rethink their
approach to specifically address uncertainties. This paved the way in the 1970s
for the establishment of the precautionary principle as a reaction to “the
limitations of public policies based on a notion of ‘assimilative capacity,’ i.e.
that humans and the environment can tolerate a certain amount of contamination
or disturbance, and that this amount can be calculated and controlled”.

4
[Link]
 [6]

In the mid-1970s, West Germany’s legislature enacted a national environmental

policy which provided for precautionary approach to environmental protection.
Termed as Vorsorgeprinzip, the precautionary principle is considered to be the
most important principle of German environmental policy.

5
BASIC FEATURES OF PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:

The Precautionary Principle represents a paradigm shift in decision-making. It

allows for five key elements that can prevent irreversible damage to people and
nature:
1. Anticipatory Action: There is a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent
harm. Government, business, and community groups, as well as the general
public, share this responsibility.
2. Right to Know: The community has a right to know complete and accurate
information on potential human health and environmental impacts associated
with the selection of products, services, operations, or plans. The burden to
supply this information lies with the proponent, not with the general public.
3. Alternatives Assessment: An obligation exists to examine a full range of
alternatives and select the alternative with the least potential impact on human
health and the environment, including the alternative of doing nothing.
4. Full Cost Accounting: When evaluating potential alternatives, there is a duty
to consider all the reasonably foreseeable costs, including raw materials,
manufacturing, transportation, use, cleanup, eventual disposal, and health costs
even if such costs are not reflected in the initial price. Short and long-term
benefits and time thresholds should be considered when making decisions.
5. Participatory Decision Process: Decisions applying the Precautionary
Principle must be transparent, participatory, and informed by the best available
science and other relevant information.

MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS:

5
[Link]
precautionary-principle
 [7]

Several multilateral environmental agreements refer to precautionary

principle in some form, but rarely provide elaboration into specific guidance.
Similarly, several national level environmental initiatives invoke the
precautionary principle. Here, a brief overview of some such initiatives is
provided.
a) Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1987 –
‘Parties to this Protocol, determined to protect the ozone layer by taking
precautionary measures to control equitably total global emissions of substances
that deplete it..’ the "Montreal Protocol" was signed, phasing out the substances
that deplete the Ozone Layer.
The Montreal Protocol aims to slowly get rid of the substances that
deplete the Ozone Layer. It is the milestone multilateral ecological arrangement
that manages the creation and utilization of almost 100 man-made synthetic
compounds alluded to as ozone depleting substances (ODS). When delivered to
the air, those synthetic substances harm the stratospheric ozone layer, the
Earth's defensive shield; that shields people and nature from destructive degrees
of bright radiation from the sun. Embraced on September 15, 1987, the Protocol
is to date the main United Nations settlement that has been confirmed each
nation on Earth — every one of the 197 UN Member States.
 [8]

6
b) The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 –
‘In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by states according to their
capabilities.’ The Rio de Janeiro conference
highlighted how different social, economic
and environmental factors are
interdependent and evolve together, and how
success in one sector requires action in other
sectors to be sustained over time. The
primary objective of the Rio 'Earth Summit' was to produce a broad agenda and
a new blueprint for international action on environmental and development
issues that would help guide international cooperation and development policy
in the twenty-first century.

7
c) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 –

Article 3.3 says, “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate,
prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse
effects.” The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) established an international environmental treaty to combat
"dangerous human interference with the climate system", in part by stabilizing
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. It was signed by 154 states at
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED),
informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June
1992. It established a Secretariat headquartered in Bonn, Germany, and entered
into force on 21 March 1994. The treaty called for ongoing scientific research
and regular meetings, negotiations, and future policy agreements designed to
allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food
production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in
a sustainable manner.
8
d) Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 –
6
[Link]
7
[Link]
 [9]

This Convention does not directly use the term ‘precaution’ but interprets the
‘serious and irreversible’ harm referred in the Rio Declaration in the context of
biodiversity. It states, “where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of
biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a
reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat.”
9
e) The Maastricht Treaty of European Union, 1992 –

“Community policy on the environment must aim at a

high level of protection and be based on the
precautionary principle, as well as on the principle
that preventive action should be taken, that
environmental damage should be rectified at source
and that the polluter should pay.”

f) Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety, 2000 – “In accordance

with the precautionary approach the objective of this Protocol is to contribute to
ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer,
handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern
biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human
health, and specifically focusing on trans-boundary movements.”
g) Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), 2001 –
The objective states, “Mindful of the precautionary
approach as set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development, the objective of this
Convention is to protect human health and environment
from persistent organic pollutants.” This treaty
operationalizes precaution with explicit reference to it in
the preamble, provisions for adding POPs, and
determination of best available technologies.
10
Environment and health applications

Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:
8
[Link]
9
[Link]
10
[Link]
 [10]

 Global warming or other abrupt climate change

 Extinction of species

 Introduction of new and potentially harmful products into the

environment, threatening biodiversity (e.g., genetically modified
organisms)

 Threats to public health, due to new diseases and techniques

(e.g., AIDS transmitted through blood transfusion)

 Persistent or acute pollution (asbestos, endocrine disruptors, etc.)

 Food safety (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease)

 Other new biosafety issues (e.g., artificial life, new molecules)

The precautionary principle is often applied to biological fields because changes

cannot be easily contained and have the potential of being global. The principle
has less relevance to contained fields such as aeronautics, where the few people
undergoing risk have given informed consent (e.g., a test pilot). In the case of
technological innovation, containment of impact tends to be more difficult if
that technology can self-replicate. The application of the principle can be seen
in the public policy of requiring pharmaceutical companies to carry out clinical
trials to show that new medications are safe.

11
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN INDIAN CONTEXT:

11
[Link]
 [11]

In India, there are lots of environmental regulations but environmental

regulations as Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 are aimed at cleaning up pollution and controlling the
amount of it released into the environment. They regulate the harmful
substances as they are emitted rather than limiting their use or production in the
first place. These laws are based on the assumption that humans and ecosystem
can absorb a certain amount of contamination without being harmed. But the
past experience shows that it is very difficult to know what levels of
contamination, if any, are safe and therefore, it is better to err on the side of
caution while dealing with the environment.
The Precautionary Principle has not been explicitly mentioned in any
environmental laws in India. However, the Supreme Court of India has invoked
this principle while passing judgments. Building on some of the near-
precautionary approaches we saw in Indian legislation, in
1. Punjab v. Modern Cultivators, Ladwa 1964 SCR (8) 273, and Rajkot
Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum (1997) 9 SCC 552,
expectations for precaution are used as measures of tort liability.
2. The Oleum Gas Leak Case, (M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, Writ Petition
(Civil) No.12739 of 1985) extends the principle of strict and absolute liability
for those engaged in hazardous activities, thus providing the necessary impetus
for precautionary action when dealing with toxic materials and allowing
punishment for a failure to err on the side of caution.
3. Precautionary Principle does not find any place in judicial decisions in India
before Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715,
where Supreme Court referred the Brundtland Report and other international
 [12]

documents in addition to Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of

India. And also considered the legislative mandate “to protect and improve the
environment” as found in enactments like the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,
and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Drawing support from various Articles of the Constitution of India and
12

arguing that the Precautionary Principle is part of customary international laws

(and hence part of domestic laws), the Court has strongly supported the
application of precautionary principle. In fact, the Court has also applied the
reversal of burden of proof and demanded that the proponents of the activity
must demonstrate that the activity is environmentally benign. In this case the
Court explained the meaning of ‘Precautionary Principle’ in the context of
municipal law as under:
i. Environmental measures by the State Government and the Statutory
Authorities – must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation.
ii. Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
iii. The onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to
show that his action is environmentally benign.
4. In Taj Trapezium Case AIR 2002 SC 3696 the Supreme Court was dealing
with the problem of protecting the ‘Taj Mahal’ from the pollution of nearby
industries. The Court applied the ‘Precautionary Principle’ as explained by it in
Vellore case and observed – The environmental measures must anticipate,
prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The ‘onus of proof’
is on an industry to show that its operation with the aid of coke/coal is
environmentally benign. It is rather, proved beyond doubt that the emissions
generated by the use of coke/coal by the industries in Taj Trapezium are the
main polluters of the ambient air. The court ordered the industries to change
over to the natural gas as an industrial-fuel or stop functioning with the aid of
coke/coal in the Taj trapezium and relocate themselves as per the directions of
the Court.
5. In Calcutta Tanneries Case (1997) 2 SCC 411 applying the Precautionary
Principle Court ordered the polluting tanneries operating in the city of Calcutta
(about 550 in numbers) to relocate themselves from their present location and
shift to the new leather complex set-up by the West Bengal Government.
12
[Link]
 [13]

6. In Badkhal & Surajkund Lakes Case (1997) 3 SCC 715 the Supreme Court
held that the ‘Precautionary Principle’ made it mandatory for the State
Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental
degradation. The Court has no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the
two lakes from environmental degradation it was necessary to limit the
construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes. Even though the Vellore
judgment was followed in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, the
Court felt the need to explain the meaning of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ in
more detail and lucid manner so that Courts & Tribunals or Environmental
Authorities can properly apply the said principle in the matters which might
come before them.
7. In A P Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu [1999] 2 SCC 718 the
Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier stand on the precautionary principle and
demanded that the burden of proof should rest with the person/entity proposing
the activities (which may have harmful effects on the environment and/or
human beings).
8. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 2005(4 ) SCC
32,precautionary principle came to be considered by the majority of judges. The
Court also took the view that the doctrine is to be employed only in cases of
pollution when its impact is uncertain and non-negligible.
9. In S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87, the Supreme Court held
that sea beaches and sea coasts are gifts of nature and any activity polluting the
same cannot be permitted. The intensified shrimp (prawn) farming culture
industry by modern method in coastal areas was causing degradation of
mangrove ecosystem, depletion of plantation discharge of highly polluting
effluents and pollution of potable as well as ground water.
10. In KM Chinnappa, TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India 2002
(10) SCC 606, the Court recognized the importance of India’s treaty
obligations, placing the precautionary principle in this case in the context of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Despite India’s dualist legal tendencies and
a lack of implementing legislation at the time, the government was held
responsible for adhering to its treaty responsibilities that did not conflict with
domestic statutes.
13
Precautionary Principle-International Instruments

13
[Link]
 [14]

The Precautionary Principle appeared on the global stage in the 1980s. It

was first acknowledged formally in the Preamble to the Vienna Convention for
the Protection of the Ozone Layer. The parties who were signatory to the
Convention acknowledged the precautionary measures which have already been
taken at the international and the national levels to protect the ozone layer.
Banking on this recognition, the Montreal Protocol was introduced in 1987
where the signatories agreed to undertake precautionary measures to control the
emission of substances which depleted the ozone layer. In this Protocol also,
measures taken earlier to reduce the emission of chlorofluorocarbons were
recognized. The need to adopt which were precautionary in nature was also
recognized in the Second North Sea Conference Ministerial Declaration (the
London Declaration) in 1987. At the Third Sea Conference, the parties came to
a decision that they would continue applying preventive measures to prevent
damage, even there is no scientific evidence. The precautionary principle was
also included in the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of
the North-East Atlantic, which was introduced in the year 1992.
The Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development in the
Economic Commission for Europe Region, 1990 stated that the precautionary
principle has a very crucial link with the concept of sustainable development.
The Convention on the Ban of Import into Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within
Africa, 1991 (Bamako Convention) stated that the signatories should adopt and
implement precautionary and preventive measures to prevent the release of such
substances in the environment which harms the environment, even when there is
scientific proof available that such substances are causing the harm.
In the year 1992, the signatories of the Helsinki Convention on the
Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes was
introduced. The signatories to this Convention decided to be guided by the
Precautionary Principle.
The year of 1992 was very important in this regard. There was a
convergence of the precautionary principle and the climate change issue in
International Law. The Precautionary Principle was acknowledged on an
international level when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
was adopted.
Precautionary Principle in American Law
The United States has not adopted precaution as an explicit basis for
environmental policy, even though it has ratified the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, which obliges nations to exercise the
precautionary principle. Nonetheless, precaution has been articulated in some
 [15]

US environmental law and early court interpretations. Although the United

States had not expressly cited the precautionary principle in federal laws or
policies, its presence is evident in several federal environmental statutes.
Under the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) may halt the marketing of a new substance and requires safety
testing or other measures if the agency determines that the substance may
present an unreasonable risk or if exposures are predicted to be significant.
 As a precautionary measure, the Food and Drug Administration requires
all new drugs to be tested before they are put on the market.
 National Environmental Policy Act is precautionary in two ways:
1) It emphasizes foresight and attention to consequences by requiring an
environmental impact assessment for any federally funded project, and
2) it mandates consideration of alternatives including a “no-action”
alternative. NEPA is one of the best national examples of precautionary
action. The National Environmental Policy Act requires that any project
receiving federal funding and which may pose serious harm to the
environment undergo an environmental impact study, demonstrating that
there are no safer alternatives.
 The Clean Water Act established strict goals in order to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s
waters.
 The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) was designed to
“assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation
safe and healthful working conditions.
Moreover, in 2003, San Francisco became the first local government in
the US to adopt an ordinance outlining the precautionary principle. The San
Francisco ordinance requires officers, boards, commissions and departments to
implement the precautionary principle, which has five elements: anticipatory
action, right to know, alternative assessment, full cost accounting and
participatory decision process.

14
Unaddressed Issues
Despite widespread endorsement of precaution as a strategy in many (but
not all) cases, there is no single agreed statement or understanding of PP as a
Principle. Nor is it clear whether the PP is meant to be an aspirational principle
14
[Link]
 [16]

or a binding rule. If it is an aspirational principle, then it can more easily be

vague and ambiguous but will be of little help in making difficulty choices. If it
is binding regulatory rule, then it must be more concrete but will be more
arbitrary. It is neither well defined nor a stable concept. Rather, it has become
the repository for a jumble of adventurous beliefs that challenge the status quo
of political power, ideology and environmental rights.
Versions of PP diverge on several key issues:
 Is the PP part of mainstream process of risk assessment and risk management
or is it an alternative? The view that PP is inconsistent with and an alternative
to, the traditional risk assessment/risk management framework is held by both
advocate (who dislike the risk-based approach and see PP as a desirable
alternative) and critics (who favour the risk-based approach and see PP as
undesirable). In contrast, the European Commission takes the view PP is a
part of risk management. Similarly, the San Francisco version of PP calls for
an analysis of alternatives and their consequences. And many see the PP
already at work in traditional risk assessment through the adoption of
conservative default assumptions and methods for calculating risks.
 Does the PP apply only to the environment or more broadly to all health and
environmental risks? The Rio Declaration (paragraph 15) addresses only
environment. But the European Commission, the Court of Justice of
European Commonwealth, the WTO, and other bodies have considered the
PP to be equally relevant to health, food and consumer safety risks[lxix].
 What degree of risks triggers the PP? Some versions refer to uncertain,
serious or irreversible risks (for example, the Rio Declaration) but some
versions omit these trigger criteria.
 What action should be taken under the PP? Most versions give no real
guidance, simply stating what that action should be. Other versions call for a
ban on the proposed product or activity until certainty is reduced to some
degree, usually by shifting the burden of proof unto the proponent of the
product or activity. Some versions call for adoption of best available control
technology, but others do not.
 May costs be considered? Some versions exclude cost and many analysts
pose the PP in opposition to cost0benefit analysis. But the Rio Declaration
(principle 15) refers to ‘cost-effective’ measures and the European
Commission maintains that precautionary regulation must be based on an
analysis of costs and benefits.
 Does PP require zero risk? Most versions do not and the European
Commission explicitly states that the PP ‘must not aim at zero risk’, but some
15

versions lean toward banning activities posing any uncertain risk. For

15
[Link]
 [17]

example, ‘where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the
activities should not proceed. Risks are never fully understood, so this version
would amount to a ban.
 Is there a difference between ‘precaution’ and ‘prevention’? Early version
used the terms interchangeably. For example, the Bergen Declaration (1990,
Paragraph 7) provided that the PP requires states to ‘anticipate, prevent and
attack’ risks. By contrast European Environment Agency has argued that
precaution applies to the ‘uncertain’ risks whereas prevention applies to
‘known’ risks. It is not clear, however, what is meant by ‘known’ risk. Either
there is no such thing (because all risks are uncertain), in case prevention is
an empty set and the PP applies to all risks, or there are many ‘known’ risks
(in the sense of well-understood cause and effect relationships) in which case
the PP is only about risks for which there fundamental uncertainty about the
cause-and-effect or hazard-and-harm relationship and the PP applies only to
those few rare and temporary cases of utter misery that later become
understood as scientific advances.

Conclusion
It is clear that the law on sustainable development is gaining momentum
at local, national, regional, and international levels. While the four fundamental
 [18]

elements of sustainable development the precautionary principle,

intergenerational and intra generational equity, the conservation of biological
diversity and ecological integrity, and the internalisation of environmental costs
have been much discussed and promulgated in various international and
national legal contexts, there is still a long way to go in terms of their
implementation.

The role of the judiciary in relation to the law of sustainable development

is thus of the greatest importance[lxxii]. As an offshoot of the judicial
recognition the National Environmental Policy adopted precautionary principle
as a guiding principle. However, it is still a long way to go before the PP takes
its rightful place in Indian environmental laws and even more importantly gets
effectively implemented.