The precautionary principle lays
down that before carrying out any development activity, the protagonist must
try to analyze the damage which could be caused to the environment due to his activities and try
to prevent the same.
Articles 48[1], 48-A[2] and 51 A clause (g)[3] of the Constitution of India make it mandatory to protect and improve the environment.
It has been held in NARMADA BACHAO AANDOLAN v UNION OF INDIA[4] that – the precautionary principle is applicable only where the effect of any industry upon the ecology or the environment is known and not otherwise.
The precautionary principle basically aims at avoiding any risk or damage to the environment which could be foreseen by the industrialist.
In A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v PROF. M. V. NAYUDU[5], it has been held by the Supreme Court that – the principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity.
Similarly, in the case of S. JAGANNATH v UNION OF INDIA[6], where the question was whether modern techniques of shrimp farming are environment friendly it was contended by the court that the traditional type of shrimp farming are environmentally benign and pollution free. But the modern technological type of farming using chemicals to create more produce create pollution and has degrading effect on the environment and ecology and therefore, the same cannot be permitted.
Thus, here too, the principle of precaution was sought after so as to prevent any damage to the environment.
The basic principles are that
1-Environmental measures by the State government and the statute should attack the cause of environmental degradation.
2- Where there are threats of severe and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
3- The onus of proof is on the actor or the developed industrialists to show that his action does not affect the environment.
The precautionary principle clearly states that where it is easy to analyze and foresee what damage can be caused to the environment, every step should be taken to prevent that damage.
Under the precautionary principle, the industrialist is required to undertake those procedures which cause the least damage to the environment.
In the NARMADA CASE[7], Justice Barucha held that an adverse impact on the environment can have disastrous consequences for the present generation as well as for the generations to come, and thus, all precaution has to be taken.
Thus, it is required that precaution is taken while initializing large projects for any unplanned or unscientific project can have a long lasting adverse impact on the environment which will damage not just the present but the future as well.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA v UNION OF INDIA[8], observed that for the protection of the lakes from degradation, it is necessary that the construction in their vicinity is limited.
Thus according to this principle a definite check is imposed upon all development activities.
Thus, the most important step to be taken is the prevention of pollution and damage to the environment.
The importance of this principle is manifesting from the point that the Supreme Court has from time and again considered it a part of the concept of sustainable development.
In a recent case of M. C. MEHTA v UNION OF INDIA[9] which related to vehicular pollution in Delhi, the Supreme Court again pointed out that the precautionary principle is enshrined in the concept of sustainable development. The court further pointed out that it required that there is enough breathing space in the city and for the same it is necessary that vehicular pollution is curbed.
Articles 48[1], 48-A[2] and 51 A clause (g)[3] of the Constitution of India make it mandatory to protect and improve the environment.
It has been held in NARMADA BACHAO AANDOLAN v UNION OF INDIA[4] that – the precautionary principle is applicable only where the effect of any industry upon the ecology or the environment is known and not otherwise.
The precautionary principle basically aims at avoiding any risk or damage to the environment which could be foreseen by the industrialist.
In A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v PROF. M. V. NAYUDU[5], it has been held by the Supreme Court that – the principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity.
Similarly, in the case of S. JAGANNATH v UNION OF INDIA[6], where the question was whether modern techniques of shrimp farming are environment friendly it was contended by the court that the traditional type of shrimp farming are environmentally benign and pollution free. But the modern technological type of farming using chemicals to create more produce create pollution and has degrading effect on the environment and ecology and therefore, the same cannot be permitted.
Thus, here too, the principle of precaution was sought after so as to prevent any damage to the environment.
The basic principles are that
1-Environmental measures by the State government and the statute should attack the cause of environmental degradation.
2- Where there are threats of severe and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
3- The onus of proof is on the actor or the developed industrialists to show that his action does not affect the environment.
The precautionary principle clearly states that where it is easy to analyze and foresee what damage can be caused to the environment, every step should be taken to prevent that damage.
Under the precautionary principle, the industrialist is required to undertake those procedures which cause the least damage to the environment.
In the NARMADA CASE[7], Justice Barucha held that an adverse impact on the environment can have disastrous consequences for the present generation as well as for the generations to come, and thus, all precaution has to be taken.
Thus, it is required that precaution is taken while initializing large projects for any unplanned or unscientific project can have a long lasting adverse impact on the environment which will damage not just the present but the future as well.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA v UNION OF INDIA[8], observed that for the protection of the lakes from degradation, it is necessary that the construction in their vicinity is limited.
Thus according to this principle a definite check is imposed upon all development activities.
Thus, the most important step to be taken is the prevention of pollution and damage to the environment.
The importance of this principle is manifesting from the point that the Supreme Court has from time and again considered it a part of the concept of sustainable development.
In a recent case of M. C. MEHTA v UNION OF INDIA[9] which related to vehicular pollution in Delhi, the Supreme Court again pointed out that the precautionary principle is enshrined in the concept of sustainable development. The court further pointed out that it required that there is enough breathing space in the city and for the same it is necessary that vehicular pollution is curbed.
[1]
Article 48 Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall
endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific
lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the
breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle
[2]Article
48A Protection and improvement of
environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life The State shall endeavour
to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild
life of the country
[3]
Article 51 A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures;
[4] Narmada Bachao Andolan v UOI (2000)10 SCC 664
[5] AP pollution control board v Prof M V Nayudu(1999) 2SCC718
[6] S
Jagannath v UOI AIR 1998 SC 811
[7] Narmada Bachao Andolan v UOI (2000)10 SCC 664
[8] M C Mehta v UOI AIR 1996 SC 1977
[9] M C Mehta v UOI AIR 2002 SC 1696
No comments:
Post a Comment