Tort Law: A tortuous liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law and this duty is
towards persons generally and breach is regardless by action for unliquidated damages. There are three
activities under tort from environment point of view: 1. Nuisance, 2. Negligence, 3. Strict Liability. There
are two categories of setting damages by Court: 1. Substantial means assessable and 2. Exemplary means
not countable.
Nuisance: Any act or omission of facts, injury, damage, annoyance or offence that effect sense of sight,
smell, hearing which is or may be dangerous to life or injurious to health or property of a person can be
understood as nuisance. [a] Private Nuisance: when an individual creates any problem of any individual, it
is called private nuisance. [b] Public Nuisance: when any nuisance caused by some one effects public at
large, it is called public nuisance. Case Law: (1) Durga Prasad Vs State, Court said that anything which
annoys, heart that is offence in nuisance. (2) P Venkatappa Vrs B Lovis [AIR 1986] Andhra Pradesh High
Court upheld the order of lower court’s mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the holes of
chimney facing the plaintiff’s property. Court authorized plaintiff to close the hole at defendant cost if
defendant fails to do so. Court said that fumes and smoke interfered with ordinary comfort were enough to
constitute an actionable nuisance and actual injury to health need not to be proved. (3) Rambaj Singh Vrs
Babulal [AIR1982] –similarly a permanent injunction was granted to close the brick grinding machine
which was disturbing to Doctor’s clinic.
Negligence: It is a failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand where there is duty to
take care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid such act or omission which could cause injury to person
or property. Case Law-(1) Mukesh Textiles Vrs H R Subramanium Shashtry- Sugar factory-Farm land,
molasis spoils crop- pay damages but factory was not stopped.
Strict Liabilities: it is a doctrine which means ‘liability without fault’. It allows growth of hazardous
industry while ensuring such industries will bear the burden of damages they cause when hazardous
substance escapes. Case Law;- M C Mehta Vs UOI [AIR 1987] I.E. Sriram Gas case i.e. concept of
absolute liabilities-Industry in residential area violates Article 21 of Constitution-Ordered to relocate and
pay compensation.
Precautionary Principle: It is 11th Principle of United Nation Resolution on world charter on nature in
1982. This principle was again reiterated in Reo Conference in 1992. Precautionary principle is a tool for
making better health and environmental decisions. It aims to prevent harm from the outset rather mange it
after the fact. In common language this means “better safe than sorry”. P P denotes a duty to prevent harm
when it is within our power to do so. It is better to take protective action before there is scientific proof of
risk. Case Law: (1) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control case-it was laid that envt protection shall not be
only done to protect health of persons but for the sake of envt also.(2) M C Mehta Vs UOI [2002 SCC]-
Auto policy of the govt must comply constitutional provisions i.e. directive principle. Article 48-A State
Shall Endeavour to protect and improve the natural envt and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the
country. in MC Mehta v Union of India 47, arts 39(e), 47 and 48-A collectively cast a duty on the state to
secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment. On this
premise, to protect the health of the people of Delhi, the court issued several directions to phase out
grossly polluting old vehicles and non-CNG buses. The court rightly rejected the government’s plea that
CNG was in short supply.
Polluters Pay Principle: PPP is a globally well recognized and much celebrated environment law
principle. The primary function of the principle is that help in allocating the cost and repairing the
damages between from different stakeholders for the harm caused by them to the envt. This principle is
based on common-sense approach for the mitigation of environmental degradation. It simply means that
who damages the envt should bear the cost of rectifying the damages. It was introduced in Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1972 and again in Reo in 1992. Case Law- (1) SC
applied this principle in MC Mehta Vs UoI 1986.[Oleum Gas Leakage from Sriram Food and Fertizer- S
C said ‘ remediation of the damaged envt is a part of the process of sustainable devt and as such the
polluter is liable to pay the cost to individual sufferer. SC asked polluter to pay as a guarantee for taking
measures to control pollution. (2) Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Vs UoI-1996 Bichhari village
Udaipur-Chemical industries-Court held- pay for pollution to maintain damages. (3) Vellor Citizen
welfare Forum Vs UoI 1996.
Public Trust Doctrine: The public trust doctrine primarily rest on the principle that certain resources like
air, water, sea and forest have such a great importance to people that it will be wholly unjustified to make
them a subject matter of private ownership. The said resources being gift of the nature, they should be
made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. This doctrine enjoins upon the govt to
protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit it to use for private
ownership or commercial use. It was first discussed in Stockholm convention in 1972. Case Law: this
doctrine was first mentioned in M C Mehta Vs Kamalnath- HimachalGovt-leased riparian forest land on
river Beas-pvt company for commercial use-interfered natural flow of river-SC suo moto-news paper-
natural resources like air, water can not be given to private company- commercial use, it is for enjoyement
for public at large. It was held that doctrine of public trust implies to following restriction on Govt
authority; 1. Property subject to trust must not only be used for private purpose but must be made
available to general public. 2. Such property shall not be sold for anything in return. 3. Property must be
maintained. (2) MI Builder Vrs Radheshyam Sahu: Court held that agreement between builder and
Lucknow Mahanagarpalika was opposed to public policy. Mahaplaika allowed commercial shopping mall
on public park and violated Public Trust Doctrine- ordered to demolish unauthorized complex.