ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN INDIA

It is interesting to note that natural resources had been stored virtually untouched in the Earth
for millions of years. But since the start of the industrial revolution vast amounts of these
resources had been exploited within a period of just a couple of hundreds of years at
unimaginable rates, with all the waste from this exploitation going straight in the environment
(air, water, land) and seriously damaging its natural processes. Although pollution had been
known to exist for a very long time (at least since people started using fire thousands of years
ago), it had seen the growth of truly global proportions only since the onset of the industrial
revolution during the 19th century.
Environmental degradation in India has been caused by a variety of social, economic,
institutional and technological factors. Rapidly growing population, urbanization and
industrial activities have all resulted in considerable deterioration in the quality and
sustainability of the environment. Environmental ethics have also formed an inherent part of
Indian religious precepts and philosophy.
The importance of Judiciary in a democratic setup for protection of life and personal rights
can hardly be overestimated. India has a highly developed judicial system with the Supreme
Court having plenary powers to make any order for doing complete justice in any cause or
matter and a mandate in the Constitution, to all authorities, Civil and Judicial, in the territory
of India to act in aide of the Supreme Court. The scope of Writ Jurisdiction of the High
Courts is wiser than traditionally understood and the judiciary is separate and independent of
the executive to ensure impartiality in administration of justice .
In considering the role of the judiciary in environmental governance, there are two issues that
need to be considered. The first is the role the judiciary in the interpretation of environmental
law and in law making and the second is the capability of jurists to effectively interpret the
increasingly cross-linked issues brought to their attention.

Historical Overview:

The Environment Protection Act 1986 defines environment as “environment includes

water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and
land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro organism and property.”

Besides the physical and biological aspect, the “environment” embraces the social, economic,
cultural, religious, and several other aspects as well. The environment, thus, is an
amalgamation of various factors surroundings an organism that interact not only with the

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

organism but also among themselves. It means the aggregation of all the external conditions
and influences affecting life and development of organs of human beings, animals and plants.

Policy and Laws in Ancient India:

In the ancient India, protection and cleaning up of environment was the essence of the Vedic
culture. The conservation of the environment formed an ardent article of faith, reflected in the
daily lives of the people and also enshrined in myth folklore, art, culture and religion. In
Hindu theology forests, trees and wildlife protection held a place of special reference.

Policy and Laws in British India

BY AROUND 1860, Britain had emerged as the world leader in deforestation, devastation its
own woods and the forest of Ireland, South Africa and north eastern United States to draw
timber for shipbuilding, iron-smelting and farming. In the early nineteenth century, the Raj
carried out a fierce onslaught on the sub continent’s forests. The revenue orientation of the
colonial land policy also worked towards the denunciation of forests.

The imperial forest department was formed in1864, with the help of experts from Germany,
the country which was at the time the leading European nation in forest management. The
first inspector-general of forests, Dietrich Brandish, had been a botanist and recognise
awesome task of checking the deforestation, forging legal mechanism to assert and safeguard
states control over the forests. it was his dual sense that the railway constituted the crucial
watershed with respect to the water management in India- the need was felt to start an
appropriate department, and for its effective functioning legislation was required to curtail the
previously untouched access enjoyed by the rural communities.

Policy and Laws post-independence of India:

The Indian Constitution, as adopted in 1950, did not deal with that the subject of environment
or prevention and control of pollution as such (until 1976 Amendment). The original text of
the constitution under Article 372(1) has incorporated the earlier existing laws into the
present legal system and provides that notwithstanding the repeal by this constitution of
enactment referred to in article 397, but subjected to the other provisions of the constitution,
all laws in force immediately before the commencement of the constitution shall remained in
force until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent
authority. As a result, even after five decade of independence. The plethora of such laws is

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

still in operation without any significant changes in them.
The Principles on environment
With a view to protecting and improving the environment, different legislations have been
made and different regulations, rules have been issued. The Government of India, through its
Ministry of Environment and Forests is administering has enacted nationwide comprehensive
laws.
1972 Stockholm Declaration affirms that "Man has the fundamental right to freedom,
equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of
dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the
environment for present and future generations..." This shows that it has been internationally
recognized that man's fundamental rights embraces the need to live in an uncontaminated
environment but it also puts forth man's obligation to protect the environment for posterity.
The Supreme Court has laid down that the "Precautionary principle" and the "Polluter
Pays Principle" are essential features of "sustainable development". These concepts are part
of Environment Law of the country.
The "Precautionary Principle" establishes that a lack of information does not justify the
absence of management measures. On the contrary, management measures should be
established in order to maintain the conservation of the resources. The assumptions and
methods used for the determination of the scientific basis of the management should be
presented .
The essential ingredients of the precautionary principle are:
(i) Environmental measures- by the state government and the statutory authorities- must
anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment degradation.
(ii) When there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing measure 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.
(iv) Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but
also by concern or risk potential.
In M.C. Mehta v Union of India (CNG Vehicle Case) (AIR 2002 SC 1696)
The supreme court observed that any ‘auto-policy’ framed by the Government must,
therefore, of necessity conform to the constitutional principles well as overriding statutory
duties cast upon the government under the EPA. The auto policy must adopt a ‘precautionary
principles’ and make informed recommendations which balance the needs of transportation
STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY
with the need to protect the environment.
The “polluter pays” principle came about in the 1970's when the importance of the
environment and its protection was taken in world over. It was subsequently promoted by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD). The ‘polluter pays'
principle as interpreted by the Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the
environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of
restoring the environmental degradation.
In other words, Polluter should bear the cost of pollution as the polluter is responsible for
pollution’. The principle demands that financial costs of preventing or remedying damage
caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause pollution.
It may be noted that the polluter pays principle evolved out of the rule of ‘absolute liability’
as laid down by the apex court in Sriram Gas Leak Case.

Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development means an integration of development and environment imperative

it means development in harmony with environmental consideration. To be sustainable,
development must possess both economic and ecological sustainability. It is a development
process where exploitation of resources, direction of investment, orientation of technology
development and institutional changes are all in harmony. Sustainable development also
implies local control over the resource use, and is the only path for conserving and promoting
socio-economic wellbeing in a democratic form 'eco-development’ is a related concept. It
is a process of ecologically sound development, of positive management of environment for
human benefits. For example banning tree felling in reserve forests and permitting harvesting
of minor forest products by rural poor and tribal; development of community or common
lands for rural subsistence needs of industries, towns and villages. These are the components
of the “new development strategies”. The component of eco-developmental so includes
alternative development strategies; biogas, substitute for natural resources, social forestry,
micro irrigation and recycling of waste to prevent pollution .
Vellore Citizens Case:
In a landmark judgment where the principle of sustainable development has been adopted by
the Supreme Court as a balancing concept, while rejecting the old notion that development
and environmental protection cannot go together, the apex court held the view that
sustainable development has now come to be accepted as “a viable concept to eradicate
poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

supporting eco system.” Thus, pollution created as a consequence of development must be
commensurate with the carrying capacity of our ecosystem.
FACTS - In this case, certain tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated
effluent into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways as open lands. The untreated effluent
finally discharges in the river which has the main source of water supply to the residence of
Vellore. The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions for maintaining the standards
stipulated by the Pollution Control Board.

Observations

The Supreme Court Observe that the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays
principle” are part of the Environment law of the country. These principles are essential
features of “Sustainable Development.” The “precautionary principle” in the context of the
municipal law means: (i)Environmental measures by the State Government and the statutory
authorities – must anticipate , prevent and attack the cause of the environmental
degradation(ii) Where there are threats of serious irreversible damages, lack of scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation .(iii) The “onus of proof “in on the actor /industrialist to show that his action is
environmentally benign.

DECISION: - The Supreme Court directed the Central government to constitute an authority
under sec. 3 of the Environment Act, 1986 and confer on the said authority all the powers
necessary to deal with the situation created by the powers necessary to deal with the situation
created by the tanneries and other polluting industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The
authority (headed by retired judge of the High Court) shall implement the precautionary and
polluter pays principles. The authority should compute the compensation under two heads,
namely, for reserving the ecology and for the payment to individuals.

The Constitutional and Legislative measures – The Constitution of India and

Environment.
To protect and improve the environment is a constitutional mandate. It is the commitment for
a country wedded to the ideas of a welfare State. The Indian constitution contains specific
provisions for environmental protection under the chapters of Directive Principles of the State
Policy and Fundamental Duties. The absence of any specific provision in the Constitution

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

recognising the fundamental right to (clean and wholesome) environment has been set off by
judicial activism in the recent times.

2.2 Article 48A and 51 (A)(g)

A global adaption consciousness for the protection of the environment in the seventies
prompted the Indian Government to enact the 42nd Amendment (1976) to the Constitution.
The said amendment added Art. 48A to the Directive Principles of State Policy. It Declares:-

“the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests
and wildlife of the country”.

A similar responsibility imposed upon on every citizen in the form of Fundamental Duty –

2.3 Art. 51(A) (g)

“to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife,
and to have compassion for living creatures”.
The amendments also introduced certain changes in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
‘Forest’ and ‘Wildlife’ were transferred from the State list to the Concurrent List. This shows
the concern of Indian parliamentarian to give priority to environment protection by bringing
it out the national agenda. Although unenforceable by a court, the Directive Principles are
increasingly being cited by judges was a complementary to the fundamental rights. In several
environmental cases, the courts have guided by the language of Art. 48A. and interpret it as
imposing “an obligation” on the government, including courts, to protect the environment.
In L.K Kollwal V State of Rajasthan, a simple writ petition by citizens of Jaipur compelled
the municipal authorities to provide adequate sanitation. The court observes that when every
citizen owes a constitutional duty to protect the environment (Art.51A), the citizen must be
also entitled to enlist the court’s aid in enforcing that duty against recalcitrant State agencies.
The Court gave the administration six month to clean up the entire city, and dismissed the
plea of lack of funds and staff.
The Public Trust Doctrine, evolved in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, states that certain
common properties such as rivers, forests, seashores and the air were held by Government in
Trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Granting lease to a motel
located at the bank of the River Beas would interfere with the natural flow of the water and
that the State Government had breached the public trust doctrine.

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

A matter regarding the vehicular pollution in Delhi city, in the context of Art 47 and 48 of the
Constitution came up for consideration in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Vehicular
Pollution Case). It was held to be the duty of the Government to see that the air did not
become contaminated due to vehicular pollution. The Apex court again confirming the right
to healthy environment as a basic human right stated that the right to clean air also stemmed
from Art 21 which referred to right to life. This case has served to be a major landmark
because of which lead-free petrol supply was introduced in Delhi. There was a complete
phasing out old commercial vehicles more than 5 years old as directed by the courts. Delhi
owes its present climatic conditions to the attempt made to maintain clean air.

The Ganga Water Pollution case: M C Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1988, SC 1037

The owners of some tanneries near Kanpur were discharging their effluents from their
factories in Ganga without setting up primary treatment plants. The Supreme Court held that
the financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant while requiring them
to establish primary treatment plants. The Court directed to stop the running of these
tanneries and also not to let out trade effluents from the tanneries either directly or indirectly
into the river Ganga without subjecting the trade effluents to a permanent process by setting
up primary treatment
In the very recent case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, a case
concerning conservation of forests, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, held: Considering the
compulsions of the States and the depletion of forest, legislative measures have shifted the
responsibility from States to the Centre. Moreover any threat to the ecology can lead to
violation of the right of enjoyment of healthy life guaranteed under Art 21, which is required
to be protected. The Constitution enjoins upon this Court a duty to protect the environment.

2.4 Article 246

Art.246 of the Constitution divides the subject areas of legislation between the Union and the
States. The Union List (List I) includes defence, foreign affairs, atomic energy, intestate
transportation, shipping, air trafficking, oilfields, mines and inter-state rivers. The State List
(List II) includes public health and sanitation, agriculture, water supplies, irrigation and
drainage, fisheries. The Concurrent list (List III) (under which both State and the Union can
legislate) includes forests, protection of wildlife, mines and minerals and development not
covered in the Union List, population control and factories. From an environmental

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

standpoint, the allocation of legislative authority is an important one – some environmental
problem such as sanitation and waste disposal, are best tackled at the local level; others, like
water pollution and wildlife protection, are better regulated uniform national laws.

2.5 Article 253

Art.253 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make laws implementing India’s

international obligations as well as any decision made at an international conference,
association or other body. Art.253 states: Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing
provision provisions of this chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or
any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with
any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference,
association or other body. The Tiwari Committee in 1980 recommended that a new entry on
“environmental Protection” be introduced in the concurrent list to enable the centre to
legislate on environmental subjects, as there was no direst entry in the 7th seventh enables
Parliament to enact comprehensive environment laws. The recommendation, however, did to
consider parliament’s power under Art.253

2.6 Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (g)

ART. 14 states: “The states shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.’’ The right to equality may also be
infringed by government decisions that have an impact on the environment. An arbitrary
action must necessary involve a negation of equality, thus urban environmental groups often
resort to Art.14 to quash arbitrary municipal permission for construction that are contrary to
development regulations.

2.7 Article 21

(Right to Wholesome Environment)

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according procedure
established by law."

In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court while elucidating on the
importance of the ‘right to life’ under Art. 21 held that the right to life is not confined to mere
animal existence, but extends to the right to live with the basic human dignity (Bhagwati

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

J.)Similarly while interpreting Art.21 in Ganga Pollution Case as discussed before, Justice
Singh justified the closure of polluting tanneries observed: "we are conscious that closure of
tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life. Health and ecology have greater
importance to the people."

Environmental Laws In India

THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT 1974

The Act prohibits discharge of pollutants into water bodies beyond a given standard and lays
down penalties for non-compliance with its provisions.

It set up the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) which lays down standard for the
prevention and control of water pollution. At the state level, the State Pollution Control Board
(SPCB) functions under the direction of CPCB.

The functions of CPCB have been laid down in section 16 whereas the functions of SPCB has
been laid down in section 17.

The sampling of effluents for test has been laid down in section 21.

In Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. CPCB, AIR 1986 Del 152, it was found that the
representatives of board got the samples analysed from a non-recognized laboratory by the
state. The court held that since section 21 was not complied upon, the test results were
inadmissible as evidence.

The Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution Act, 1981)

To implement the decision taken in the Stockholm Conference, the Parliament enacted the
Air Act under Article 253.
It controls mainly air pollution and its abatement. Also establishes air quality standards.
The Central and State Boards set up under section 16 and 17 independently notify emission
standards.
Every industrial operator within a declared air pollution area, must obtain a permit from the
State Board (Sec-21(1) and (2)).
Within four months from the date of application for the permit, the board must complete the
formalities – either grant or refuse consent.

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

Power of the Boards:
· Power of entry and inspection
· Power to take samples
· Power to give directions

Other important laws:

1986 - The Environment (Protection) Act authorizes the central government to protect and
improve environmental quality, control and reduce pollution from all sources, and prohibit or
restrict the setting and /or operation of any industrial facility on environmental grounds.

1989 - The objective of Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules is to control the
generation, collection, treatment, import, storage, and handling of hazardous waste.

1991 - The Public Liability Insurance Act and Rules and Amendment, 1992 was drawn up to
provide for public liability insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the
persons affected by accident while handling any hazardous substance.

2000 - The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, apply to every
municipal authority responsible for the collection, segregation, storage, transportation,
processing, and disposal of municipal solid wastes.

2002 - The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules lay down such
terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit use of loud speakers
or public address systems during night hours (between 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight) on or
during any cultural or religious festive occasion .

1927 - The Indian Forest Act and Amendment, 1984, is one of the many surviving colonial
statutes. It was enacted to ‘consolidate the law related to forest, the transit of forest produce,
and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce’ .

1948 – The Factories Act and Amendment in 1987 was the first to express concern for the
working environment of the workers. The amendment of 1987 has sharpened its
environmental focus and expanded its application to hazardous processes.
STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY
Writs And PILs For Safeguarding The Environment

A writ petition can be filed to the Supreme Court under Art.32 and the High Court under
Art.226, in the case of a violation of a fundamental right. Since the right to a wholesome
environment has been recognised as an implied fundamental rights, the writ petitions are
often restorted to in environment cases. Generally, the writs of Mandamus, Certiorari and
Prohibition are used in environmental matters. For instance, a Mandamus (a writ to command
action by a public authority when an authority id vested with power and wrongfully refuses to
exercise it ) would lie against a municipality that fails to construct sewers and drains, clean
street and clear garbage (Rampal v State of Rajasthan) likewise, a state pollution control
board may be compelled to take action against an industry discharging pollutants beyond the
permissible level.

The writs of certiorari and prohibition are issued when an authority acts in excess of
jurisdiction, acts in violation of the rules of natural justice, acts under a law which is
unconstitutional, commits an error apparent on the face of the record, etc. For instance, a writ
of certiorari will lie against a municipal authority that consider a builder’s applications and
permits construction contrary to development riles e.g. wrongfully sanctions an office
building in an area reserve for a garden. Similarly, against water pollution control board that
wrongly permits an industry to discharge effluents beyond prescribe levels.

A writ of Certiorari will lie against a municipal authority that permits construction contrary to
development rules or acts in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of rules of natural justice for
instance wrongly sanctioning an office building in an area reserved for garden.

When a fundamental right, which includes right to wholesome environment is violated Art.
32 and 226 provide appropriate remedy.

In E.Sampath Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1998, AIHC 4498

The party an individual was troubled by the excessive noise pollution and vibrations caused
by electrical motors, diesel engines, and generator used by a Hotel. The high court held that
an affected person can maintain a writ petition while rejecting the hotel owner’s plea that a
civil suit would be proper remedy.

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

Public interest litigation describes legal actions brought to protect or enforce rights enjoyed
by members of the public or large parts of it.

In a public interest case, the subject matter of litigation is typically a grievances against the
violation of basic human rights of the poor and helpless or about or about the content or
conduct of government policy this litigation is not strictly adversarial (in a adversarial
procedure, each party produces his own evidence tested by cross-examination by other side)
and in it a judge play a large role in organising and shaping the litigation and in supervising
the implementation of relief.

Since the 1980s public interest litigation (PIL) has altered both the litigation landscape and
the role of the higher judiciary in India. Supreme Court and High Court judges were asked to
deal with public grievances over flagrant human rights violations by the state or to vindicate
the public policies embodied in statutes or constitutional provisions. This new type of judicial
business is collectively called public interest litigation.

In Ramdas Shenoy v The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council , Udipi a rate tax
payer’s right to challenge an illegal sanction to convert a building into a cinema was upheld
by Supreme Court.

In Mahesh R Desai V. Union of India, a journalist complained to the Supreme Court that
the national coastline was being sullied by unplanned development that violated a Central
Government directive. The Supreme Court registered the letter as a petition, requested the
court’s legal aid committee to appoint a lawyer for the petition and issued notice to the Union
Government and the government of the all States.

Taj Mahal Case:

In Taj Mahal's case (M C Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1997, SC 734), the Supreme Court
issued directions that coal and coke based industries in Taj Trapezium (TTZ) which were
damaging Taj should either change over to natural gas or to be relocated outside TTZ. Again
the Supreme Court directed to protect the plants planted around Taj by the Forest Department
as under:

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

The Divisional Forest Officer, Agra is directed to take immediate steps for seeing that water
is supplied to the plants... The Union Government is directed to release the funds
immediately without waiting for receipt of the proposal from the U.P. Government on the
basis of the copy of the report. Funding may be subsequently settled with the U.P.
Government, but in any set of circumstances for want of funds the officer is directed to see
that plants do not wither away.

The Court held that 292 industries located and operating in Agra must changeover within
fixed time schedule to natural gas as industrial fuel or stop functioning with coke /coal and
get relocated. The industries not applying for gas or relocated are to stop functioning with
coke/coal from 30-04-97. The Shifting industries shall be given incentives in terms of the
provisions of Agra Master Plan and also the incentive normally extended to the new
industrial units.

The integration of the international principles of environmental law into the Indian legal
framework is an important consequence of the emergence of Public Interest Litigation in the
realm of environmental law. (Razzaque, 2004) In fact, the application and re-interpretation of
international legal principles in the Indian context reflect a greater concern with making
hazardous industrial enterprises responsible towards environmental concerns. In M C Mehta
v Union of India the Supreme Court extends the principle of strict liability drawing from the
Rylands v Fletchers case in English law to formulate a principle of absolute liability whereby
an enterprise carrying out a hazardous activity is “absolutely liable” to compensate for any
harm arising from such activity. The principle of strict liability in English common law states
that “a person will be strict liable when he brings or accumulates on his land something likely
to cause harm if it escapes, and damage arises as a natural consequence of its
escape.”(Razzaque, 2004: 210) However, in formulating a principle of absolute liability, the
Court contends that such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions“ under the rule in
Rylands v Fletcher.”

The Bhopal Gas Leak Case

The Bhopal disaster raised complex legal questions about the liability of parent companies
for the acts of their subsidiaries, the responsibilities of multinational corporations engaged in
hazardous activities, the transfer of hazardous technologies and the applicable principles of
liability. Bhopal was inspirational factor for the judicial innovation in the area of evolving

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

principles of corporate liability for use of hazardous technology .

On December 3, 1984,highly toxic methyl isocyanides (MIC), which had been manufactured
and stored in Union Carbide’s chemical plant in Bhopal, escaped into the atmosphere and
killed over 3,500 people and seriously injured about 2 lakh people .

The Bhopal gas leak disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was passed by parliament to
ensure that the claims arising out of the Bhopal disaster were dealt with speedily, effectively,
equitably and to the best advantage of the claimants.

High Court Judgment:

Justice Seth used English Rules of procedure to create an entitlement to interim compensation
(i.e. it is permissible for courts to grant relief of interim payment under the substantive law of
torts). Under the English rules, interim relief granted in personal injury cases if a prima facie
case is made out. He said that “more than prima facie case have been made out” against the
Carbide.

He observed that the principle of absolute liability without exceptions laid down in M.C.
Mehta case applied more vigorously to the Bhopal suit. He holds that Carbide is financially a
viable corporation with $ 6.5 billion unencumbered asset and $200millions encumbered
assets plus an insurance which could cover up to $250millions worth of damages. Given
carbide’s resources, it is eminently just that it meet a part of its liability by interim
compensation (Rs.250cr.)

In Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 273), the Supreme Court
secured a compromise between the UCC and Government of India. Under the settlement,
UCC agreed to pay US $470 million in full and final settlement of all past, present and future
claims arising from the Bhopal disaster. In addition to facilitate the settlement, the Supreme
Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and terminated all the civil, criminal and
contempt of court proceedings that had arisen out of the Bhopal disaster. It was declared by
the court that if the settlement fund is exhausted, the Union of India should make good the
deficiency.

Review petition under Art.137 and writ petitions under Art.32 of the Constitution of India

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

were filed questioning the constitutional and under the Bhopal Act (providing for the
registration and processing of claims) and the resultant categorization of the victims was also
upheld. It was laid down that there is no need to tie down the tort feasor to future liability
[UCC v UOI AIR 1992 SC 248].

Criminal Liability of Carbide Officials:

In UCC v UOI (AIR 1992 SC 248), the supreme court reinstate criminal charges for homicide
not amounting to murder’ (Sec. 304,Part II, IPC) against top executives at Union
Carbide( viz. nine UCIL employees and three foreign accused, including Warren Anderson,
the CEO) while uploading the rest of the settlement. The CBI in December 1993 finally
prepared the documents necessary to extradite Warren Anderson .
Conclusion:
The powers vested to the Pollution Control Boards are not enough to prevent pollution. The
Boards do not have power to punish the violators but can launch prosecution against them in
the Courts which ultimately defeat the purpose and object of the Environmental Laws due to
long delays in deciding the cases. Thus, it is imperatively necessary to give more powers to
the Boards. What we need is social awareness from below, not laws from the above. No
law works out smoothly unless the interaction is voluntary. In order to educate people about
the environmental issues, there should be exhibition of slides in the regional languages at
cinema houses and television free of cost. Further, as directed by the Supreme Court of India
in M C Mehta Case (M C Mehta V Union of India 1992, SC 382) school and college levels in
graded system so that there should be general growth of awareness.

STRICLTY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY