The polluter pays principle lays
down that the individuals or the industries causing pollution or carrying out
activities which tend to pollute the environment are bound to make compensation
to all the individual sufferers as well as the required to make compensation
for the damage done to the environment.
It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of M. C. MEHTA v KAMAL NATH[1] that the polluter is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the environment.
Any person, whose activities lead to environmental degradation shall be responsible to make good that loss or damage. Such as person shall have an absolute liability to make good that damage.
The term ‘absolute liability’ indicates that the polluter can in no way avoid his liability. Where his liability for remediation is concerned, he cannot take the aid of any exception, for the rule of absolute liability is not subject to any exception[2].
In Council for ENVIRO LEGAL ACTION v UNION OF INDIA[3], it was contended that the principle on which the liability of the respondents to defray the costs of remedial measures will be determined is, the “Polluter Pays”, that is, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry.
Thus, the “Polluter pays principle” clearly indicates that the absolute liability for the harm caused to the environment is on the polluter and it extends not only to compensate the victims of the pollution but also at the cost of restoring the environment its natural condition.
In the VELLORE CASE[4], it was held that the remediation of the damaged environment is a part of the process of sustainable development and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
Thus, the cost of reversing the damaged ecology comes very much in the ambit of this principle and is included in the cost of the project.
BURDEN OF PROOF
According to the polluter pays principle, the onus is also on the individual or the industrialist to prove that his activities were environmentally benign. This principle was also laid down in the VELLORE CASE[5]
Thus, the burden of proof lies on the person carrying on development activities to show that his activities cannot and do not harm the environment in any manner.
Similarly, in the ENVIRO-LEGAL CASE[6], it was held that the remediation of the damaged environment was considered very much a part of the process of sustainable development and the onus of the same lay on the polluter.
The developed industrialist is required not only to make good any damage caused to the environment because of the pollution and other hazards caused by his activities and is also liable to make good any damage caused to the environment.
In the BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY[7], the polluter company Union Carbide Ltd. was ordered to make good all the damage caused to the environment due to its negligence which led to the escape of the poisonous methyl isocyanide gas. In SHRIRAM FOODS AND FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v UNION OF INDIA[8], where the manufacturing process was closed down due to the leakage of oleum gas, the Supreme Court ordered that the chairman and the managing director shall be personally liable for payment of compensation for death or injury.
It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of M. C. MEHTA v KAMAL NATH[1] that the polluter is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the environment.
Any person, whose activities lead to environmental degradation shall be responsible to make good that loss or damage. Such as person shall have an absolute liability to make good that damage.
The term ‘absolute liability’ indicates that the polluter can in no way avoid his liability. Where his liability for remediation is concerned, he cannot take the aid of any exception, for the rule of absolute liability is not subject to any exception[2].
In Council for ENVIRO LEGAL ACTION v UNION OF INDIA[3], it was contended that the principle on which the liability of the respondents to defray the costs of remedial measures will be determined is, the “Polluter Pays”, that is, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry.
Thus, the “Polluter pays principle” clearly indicates that the absolute liability for the harm caused to the environment is on the polluter and it extends not only to compensate the victims of the pollution but also at the cost of restoring the environment its natural condition.
In the VELLORE CASE[4], it was held that the remediation of the damaged environment is a part of the process of sustainable development and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
Thus, the cost of reversing the damaged ecology comes very much in the ambit of this principle and is included in the cost of the project.
BURDEN OF PROOF
According to the polluter pays principle, the onus is also on the individual or the industrialist to prove that his activities were environmentally benign. This principle was also laid down in the VELLORE CASE[5]
Thus, the burden of proof lies on the person carrying on development activities to show that his activities cannot and do not harm the environment in any manner.
Similarly, in the ENVIRO-LEGAL CASE[6], it was held that the remediation of the damaged environment was considered very much a part of the process of sustainable development and the onus of the same lay on the polluter.
The developed industrialist is required not only to make good any damage caused to the environment because of the pollution and other hazards caused by his activities and is also liable to make good any damage caused to the environment.
In the BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY[7], the polluter company Union Carbide Ltd. was ordered to make good all the damage caused to the environment due to its negligence which led to the escape of the poisonous methyl isocyanide gas. In SHRIRAM FOODS AND FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIES v UNION OF INDIA[8], where the manufacturing process was closed down due to the leakage of oleum gas, the Supreme Court ordered that the chairman and the managing director shall be personally liable for payment of compensation for death or injury.
[1] MC Mehta v Kamal Nath (2000)6 SCC 213
[2] M
C Mehta v UOI AIR1987 SC 1086
[3] Council
for Enviro-legal action v UOI (1996) 5 SCC 281
[4] Vellore citizen’s welfare forum v UOI AIR
1996 SC 2715
[5]
Vellore citizen’s welfare forum v UOI
AIR 1996 SC 2715
[6] Council for Enviro-legal action v UOI (1996)
5 SCC 281
[7] Union Carbide Corporation v UOI (1986)2 Comp.
LJ 169(US)
[8] 4 Shri Ram foods and fertilizers industries v
UOI AIR 1987 SC965
No comments:
Post a Comment