MODULE 1 — EXAM REVISION: TOP 10 POINTS PER

TOPIC
Dates • Case Laws • Sections • Key Principles • Criticisms

TOPIC 1: Environmental Ethics — Anthropocentrism vs

1. Anthropocentrism: Humans are supreme; nature has only instrumental value to serve human needs.
Rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition.
2. Cornucopianism: Sub-branch of anthropocentrism; denies finite resources; free-market/tech can solve all
problems. Pro-capitalism.
3. Ecocentrism: Nature-centric; intrinsic value in ALL living + non-living organisms. Holistic view. Broader
than biocentrism (life only) or zoocentrism (animals only).
4. Isa Upanishad: Ancient Indian root of ecocentrism — all organisms belong to God; no species superior; no
right to encroach on another species.
5. Indian shift: Indian judiciary moved from anthropocentrism → ecocentrism over time, influenced by
changing global norms.
6. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1977): Anthropocentric era — Brundtland Report + Stockholm 1972 relied on;
polluter pays + sustainable development recognised.
7. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI (1996): Harm to humans required to invoke environmental
principles; intergenerational equity recognised — still anthropocentric.
8. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (2012): Ecocentric shift — protection of Asiatic Wild Buffalo; court
elaborated necessity of ecocentric approach.
9. Centre for Environment Law, WWFI v. UOI (2013): Key ecocentric judgment — Asiatic wild lion; 'Species
Best Standard' introduced; separate legislation for endangered species recommended; WPA 1972 covers all
flora & fauna; all govt acts/schemes must be ecocentric.
10. Brundtland Commission (1987): Defined sustainable development: 'meeting present needs without
compromising future generations' — anthropocentric definition; no mention of other species.

TOPIC 2: Stockholm Conference, 1972

1. Date & Location: 5–16 June 1972, Stockholm, Sweden. First global conference on environment. Idea
proposed by Sweden in 1968.
2. Participants: 113 countries. Key: India, USA, USSR, UK, Canada, Brazil, Nigeria, Japan. India's PM Indira
Gandhi — 'poverty is the biggest polluter.'
3. Stockholm Declaration: 26 Principles — foundation of international environmental law. Right to healthy
environment + duty to protect it.
4. Principle 21 (Most Important): States have sovereign rights over resources BUT responsibility to ensure
no transboundary environmental harm. Cornerstone of intl env. law.
5. Action Plan: 109 recommendations — 3 parts: Earthwatch (assessment), Environmental Management,
Supporting Measures (education, funding, cooperation).
6. UNEP Created: United Nations Environment Programme established to coordinate global environmental
activities; assists developing nations.
7. World Environment Day: 5 June declared World Environment Day at Stockholm.
 8. Impact on India: Led to 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) — Art. 48A (DPSP) + Art. 51A(g)
(Fundamental Duty) on environment. Also: Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, EPA 1986.
9. Criticism: Declaration was NON-BINDING (soft law). Divide between developed (pollution focus) vs
developing (development focus) nations.
10. Legacy: Foundation for Rio 1992, Kyoto Protocol 1997, Paris Agreement 2015. Introduced sustainable
development, intergenerational equity, precautionary approach.

TOPIC 3: Rio Declaration on Environment & Development, 1992

1. Date & Location: 3–14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (UNCED / Earth Summit). Led by Maurice Strong
(also ran Stockholm). 178 countries attended.
2. Background: Brundtland Commission 1987 'Our Common Future' — introduced sustainable development.
Shift from mere env protection to integrated sustainable development.
3. 27 Principles: Core framework; reaffirmed Stockholm + expanded to include economic, social,
developmental dimensions. Soft law but hugely influential.
4. Key Principles: P1: Humans at centre; P2: Sovereignty + no transboundary harm; P3: Intergenerational
equity; P4: Env integrated into development; P7: CBDR; P10: Public participation + access to info/justice;
P15: Precautionary principle; P16: Polluter pays; P17: EIA mandatory.
5. CBDR — Principle 7: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities — developed countries bear greater
responsibility due to historical pollution.
6. Major Outcomes: Rio Declaration + Agenda 21 (action plan) + UNFCCC + Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) + Forest Principles.
7. Agenda 21: Comprehensive global action plan for sustainable development — covered all sectors; basis
for national env policies worldwide.
8. India's Position: Strongly advocated CBDR; emphasised historical responsibility of developed nations; low
per capita emissions argument.
9. Impact on India: Expanded Art. 21 to include env rights; courts adopted precautionary principle + polluter
pays; strengthened env governance.
10. Criticism: Non-binding soft law; implementation depends on political will; North-South tensions on
funding & responsibility; limited enforcement mechanism.

TOPIC 4: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992

1. Adoption & Force: Adopted 5 June 1992 at Rio Earth Summit; came into force 29 December 1993.
Initiated by UNEP discussions from 1988.
2. Parties: 196 Parties (195 countries + EU). Near-universal. USA signed but NOT RATIFIED — concerns
over sovereignty & economic interests.
3. 3 Core Objectives: (1) Conservation of biological diversity; (2) Sustainable use of components; (3) Fair &
equitable benefit sharing from genetic resources.
4. Scope: Covers ALL ecosystems, species, and genetic resources. Links biodiversity with economic
development. Incorporates precautionary principle.
5. Indigenous Communities: Explicitly recognises role of indigenous communities and traditional knowledge
in conservation — distinctive feature.
6. Institutional Framework: COP (supreme body) + CBD Secretariat (Montreal) + SBSTTA (scientific
advice) + SBI (implementation monitoring).
 7. Cartagena Protocol (2000): Regulates transboundary movement of GMOs — protects biodiversity from
biotech risks.
8. Nagoya Protocol (2010): Access & Benefit Sharing (ABS) legal framework — benefits genetic resources
provide must go to developing nations + indigenous communities.
9. India's Implementation: Biological Diversity Act 2002; National Biodiversity Authority (NBA); ABS
mechanisms. CBD influenced judicial interpretation of Art. 21.
10. Criticism: Largely non-enforceable; voluntary compliance; Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011–2020) not
fully achieved; North-South tensions on funding & tech transfer; Nagoya Protocol may hinder scientific
research.

TOPIC 5: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)

1. Definition & Source: Principle 7, Rio Declaration 1992. Shared global responsibility for environment BUT
differentiated based on historical contribution, economic capacity & developmental needs.
2. Historical Background: Developed nations industrialised early → caused bulk of historical pollution.
Developing nations argued equal obligations = unfair restriction on growth. Stockholm 1972 acknowledged
need but didn't formalise it.
3. Dual Framework: Commonality (all states share env obligation) + Differentiation (responsibility varies by
historical emissions, wealth, technology). Embodies substantive + procedural equity.
4. UNFCCC 1992: First treaty to operationalise CBDR — developed countries explicitly to 'take the lead' in
climate action.
5. Kyoto Protocol 1997: Concrete CBDR — legally binding emission cuts for developed countries ONLY;
developing nations exempted. Most rigid application.
6. Paris Agreement 2015: Flexible CBDR — ALL countries submit NDCs (Nationally Determined
Contributions) based on national circumstances. Shift from rigid categorisation → context-based
differentiation.
7. Indian Cases (Indirect): Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI (1996) — sustainable development,
precautionary + polluter pays; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI (2000) — balance env + development; Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI (1996) — polluter pays reinforced.
8. India's Position: Consistent advocate; argues developed nations have historical responsibility; highlights
low per capita emissions; uses CBDR to secure financial/tech support.
9. Mechanisms: Green Climate Fund; financial assistance; technology transfer; capacity building for
developing nations — all CBDR-based.
10. Criticism: Developed nations say disproportionate burden; rise of emerging economies blurs
developed/developing divide; Paris Agreement's flexibility weakens accountability; debates on redefining
CBDR for current realities.

TOPIC 6: Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

1. Background/Trigger: Bhopal Gas Tragedy — 2/3 Dec 1984. Union Carbide India Ltd. 40 tonnes MIC gas
leaked. ~3,000 immediate deaths; thousands injured; long-term neurological, respiratory, blindness effects.
Traditional tort law failed victims.
2. Visakhapatnam Gas Leak (2020): LG Polymers India Ltd. Styrene gas leak. 13 deaths; thousands
hospitalised. NGT took suo motu cognisance; interim ₹50 cr imposed. Company's insurance limit was only ₹5
cr — showed inadequacy.
3. Nature of Act: Welfare legislation. No-fault liability system — shift from fault-based tort law. First layer of
compensation; doesn't bar other claims.
4. Section 3 — Core: No-fault liability. Owner liable for death/injury/property damage from hazardous
substance accident. Claimant need NOT prove negligence — just prove accident + harm occurred. Liability is
additional to other legal remedies.
5. Section 4 — Insurance: Compulsory insurance before operations begin. Amount = not less than paid-up
capital, not exceeding ₹50 crore. Industries must internalise cost of risk.
6. Section 7A — Relief Fund: Environmental Relief Fund created by Central Govt. Supplements
compensation where insurance is insufficient. Additional safety net for victims.
7. Claims (S.6) & Adjudication (S.7): Claims before Collector within 5 years. Collector has civil court
powers. Summary procedure. Insurer must deposit within 30 days. Non-payment recoverable as land revenue
arrears.
8. Quantum of Relief (Schedule): Death: ₹25,000 + medical ₹12,500. Permanent disability: ₹25,000. Temp
disability: ₹1,000/month (max 3 months). Property damage: ₹6,000. Widely criticised as completely outdated.
9. Key Cases: Union Carbide Corp. v. UOI — SC approved USD 470 mn settlement; showed tort law
limitations. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI — absolute liability for hazardous industries; cost of
remediation on industry.
10. Criticism: Compensation amounts extremely low & outdated; insurance coverage often inadequate vs
scale of harm; inconsistent enforcement; compliance with insurance requirements not strictly monitored.