cHAPTER -XI

VIRONME NTAL POLLUTION AND EMERGING socio

LEGAL REALITIES ...
l

r
I

f independence more emphasis was given

In the aftermath O . . on
. . . b • . a change in the life of the masses. During that pe .
industrtabsat1on to ring •. . rtod
.
the Indian economy was not in a proper shape and thus emphasis was criven
. . . 0 on
• . development on the socio-econom ic front which paved th
£

planBed economic . . . th" . e

way to concentrat. e attention on 1ndustnal planrung. In 1s process, 1n order to
achieve rapid economic growth, the natur~ and natural re~urce_s were greatly
misused which resulted in their irreversible damage. This ultimately led to
the grave danger of environmental pollution thereby jeopardis~g the quality
of life of the masses. This grave threat to the human race uruted the world
community to sit together and think what necessary steps can be taken to arrest
this danger. As a result, taking into [Link] the prevalent socio, economic
and political realities, certain emerging principles were e:voived in our search
for achieving social justice and preserving the fragile ecosystem. Among these
'
principles, the concept of 'Sustainable Development' which focuses integration
of developmenta l and environmenta l imperatives comes to the forefront.
Besides this, sev~ral other principles namely, the precautionary principle, the
polluter pay principle, the public trust doctrine were evolved to give strength
to the concept of environment and development. Of late, the environmental
information,.as_a part of right to. know also emerged.
L SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
In -~e world of environment two contradictory demands emerged. One is the
protection and preservation of the envi.J:onment f~ t!te present '1li well as ~e
"!.,__ture gen~~t10n :,md ~-e. ?the{.__~~.e is_ .the__contIDYlnu,ro~e~s of economJC
developm~nt. The ~nternational conununi~ was interwoven with the compleX
p,ro!51em of balancing the two concepts because both are necessal'Y for the
s~ety: We cannot go for the one at the cost of the other. From the very
~gmnmg the controversy between Environment and development was there So
1n order to synthesize the controvers •al • •. th onornY,
the term 'Sustainable develo ' I imperat~ves that affect e ec . the
-- • • .... - - _!QP,ment emerged which in literal term means~
_ec~f½?.~c planning should be givensshaP~.-50 as
Process
.., -
or the way in which th
·- •• , , -=-"_ • i, ~--
.
not fo d1Sturl;> llie ~cology. Wecan say i th = . ' d lo~ent
~pro~s~ ""fRFoug"n which develop~e:~ 1 er ~~r_ds, sustainable _ev(I_ for the
con:rlng &t~!ip~.. .:: -,;;;-~ --~--:~~~~ {:;;in_!>~ sustame ... ......
.,.__
; Thus, taking into consideration th . ·ment and
. .
d eveIopment, the 1nternat1onal , e rea1 issues of environ t
. ·communi·ty d . . nt to trea
expresse its comm1tme
environment and development in an integrat d
e manner. As the debate t,etweetl
~·
I .
•1 ... nraN'fAL POLLUTION AND EMERGING SOCIO-LEGAL REALITIES 331
/ . .
developmental and economic needs and that of the environment is an
thed •ng one, it is desired that the international community should co-operate
enun 1 f. .
.· the further deve opment o 1nternat1onal law in the field of sustainable
:velopxnent.f! : Sands}R his. celebrated book International Law in the Field of
stainable Developmenijnentloned that . "sustainable development requires
5
;e states ta ensure that they develop and use their natural resources in a
manner which is sustainable." 1 According to him, sustainable development has
four objectives :
......------
f. ~J 'f\d S • . . •
'

first, it refers to a ~omm1tment to preserve natural resources for the benefit

. _ . . _ , i . . ......- ....... • •

of present arid future generations. , , ---.........__•• • ---·---~----._,.----

'--.,.d_,... .-,.,_ - """_..__, ~--- '

Second, sustainaJ;>le development [Link] to appropri~te s!~dM.4~-(~r- ti}~

t
~ploitation o{_:t;!.!._~~- !~§5?~~e~ based upon har\Tests or use (examples include
use which is usustainable" , uprudent", or "rational" or "~ise" or
"appropriate") - •- •• , • • -- . •.
. Third, yet other agreements require an_·".~quitab~~"
. use of_patural re§~urces~ .

suggesting that the use by any state must take account of the nee<:fs ·of o~e~
v states and people. -~ • • .• · . • •·-' · • .. •• •. • •. · • • .~ •..- • • • :_·
- . . - ,_ . ... . - . -• . . .,; •, . -., ....

\. , And a fourth . category of .. ~gre_em~n~s _require that envi!o_nmental

••considerations be integrate4 into economic an~ other development plans,
programmes·, ·and projects and. that the develop_ment needs are taken into /
account in applying environmental objectives." 2~ . • • •

, The Indian. Judiciary also- realising_ ~e importanc~ of. the doctrine of

sustainable development reflected in se_veral judgments, the same· sentiment
-4 which has been ex;pounded by the Stockholm Declaration and Rio· Declaration.
In liJAit(council for Enviro~Legal ·Action v. Union of India, 3 the· Supreme Court
observed that : ! · .:.. • · • • .• •

•
• "While economic development should not be allowed to take place at
the cost of ecology or by ·eausing widespread environment destruction an~
violation~- at· the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology· and
""viroJilQent should not hamper· economic and other ~developments. ~9th
\ •- ~ and environment must go hand in hand,· in other words,· there
-·J should not 1,e·de~elopment at the cost of en~ironment and vice versa, but
there should be development while takin·g due care and ensuring the
protection of e~onment."' • • . • ·• · • . ·
Further in,)ftflore Citizens' Welfare_ Fonlm v. Union of_India,s the. Sup~eme
. Court ac~owledged that "the traditional concept that development and
ecology are opposed to each other is no l~~ger acceptable.· Sustainable • • • ' # ' •

L in Kamataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C Kenchappa (2006) 6 SCC 371 at j,.•
..
·2 Ibid.
3. (1996) s sec 281. .
 332 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

deve lopm ent is the answ er." 1 Aga in is Essar Oil

Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh
Samiti, 2 the Supreme Court expressed the sam e view in th
e following Words :
"This, therefore, is the (sole) aim, ~amely, to balan~e
ec~nomic and
social need s on the one hand with envi ronm enta l cons
1derat1ons on th
other. But in a sense all deve lopm ent is an envi ronm enta
I l threat. lndeede
i\t the very existence of hum anity and the rapi d inc~ease
in the populatio~
I
toge ther with cons eque ntial dem ands to . sust ain the
\, popu latio n has
• resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutti ng dow n
\ of fores~s, the filling
up of lakes and pollution of wate r reso urce s and the
very air which we
breathe. However, there need not nece ssari ly be a
I dead lock between
1;, development on the one hand and the envi ronm ent
on the other. The
objective of all laws on environment shou ld be to crea te
harm ony between
the two since neither one can be scarified at the alter of
the other." 3
Time and again, the Indian judiciary supp orte d the conc
ept of sustainable
developmentlby recognising this principle as bein g a fund
ame ntal concept of
Indi an law in a pleth ora of cases like M. C. Mehta
v. Union of India, 4
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 5Bitu Sehgal
v. Union of India,6
and Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. 7 In Sushetha v.
State of T. N. 8 the
Supreme Court held that "the doctrine of sustainable deve
lopm ent although is
not an emp ty slogan, it is ~qui red to be impl eme nted takin
ll· g a pragmatic view
I ~d not on ipse dixit* of the Court. ,,9 •
H .
Recently in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg . .Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay
Environmental
I_ Action -Group10 the Supreme Court referring to a large num ber
of decisions stated
f that whereas the need to protect the envi ronm e~t is
necessary to promote development. Furtl1er, the Cou rt wen
a prio rity, it is also
t on to observe :
"~he harm onis ation of the two need s has led to the
concept of
'
s~st~1~able development, so muc h so that it has beco
s1g~!1cant an~ me the most
lj , focal poin t of envi ronm enta l legis latio n and judicial
dec1s1ons. rela ~g to the same. Sustai:11able deve lopm ent,
simp ly put is a
) process
B dtl 1n whic h deve lopm ent can be sust • d
~i .
run and Report defines 'sustainable deve lopma1ne over gene rat·ons
~' meets the needs of the prese t
ab·r n generatio
1 1ty of the futur e generations to mee
• ns •
ent' as deve lopm
with out compromising the
t their own need s. Making the
ent
1 •
that

l. Vellore Citizens 'Welfare Forum [Link] of India (1996) 5 sec

2. ·(2004) 2 sec 392. 647 •
' at p.
!: 5
~;;;)O ;lS~~ ; :alar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 39 at
2 p. 406_
s. (2000) 10 sec 664.
6. (20011 9 sec 1s1.
1. (2006) 3 sec 549.
I s. (2006) 6 sec 543.
• ipse dixit means "He said it to himselj'
'1 •I l1

9.
1
•

Sushetha v. State of T. N. (2006) 6 SCC 543 at p. 547

1o.
I (2006) 3 sec 434. •
 7
--
~--- :•u- ----- ----- ----- -c-- ----- ·-----
ING-'SOCIO~LEGAL REALITIES 333
ENVIRONMENTAL- POLLUTION AND EMERG
~w . - -
nal for'pUblic policies raises
ccn cep t of sus tai nab le dev elo pm ent op era tio
;h ergies and tra de offs. "1
im po rta nt cha lle nge s tha t involve CotflPiex syn
,•
-
- ,
.J ..
A. The Stocldtohn aI\d- After •
..
... " "
- '!II •
•
•
end ors ing. the -re sol uti on
Th e un ite d Na ti~ n~ ·_ cen e·r ~r As~~:g1b_lY while.
le the United Nations decided----to
passed- by the Econo_~c; an d Spcial [Link] of>
blems 9£ hu m~ environment.
convene in 1972 art. interilatioI\aj CQi\fer~IJ.<;~ on pro
,..,
ble "to Provide ·a framework
by pas sin g ano the r reSQlutioll. be1ieYipg •it d'esira
ite~: ~atiops· of the· problems. Of
for c;o mp reh e~i ve _~cj~i~irati04_:~vith_ip.·,_me_ Jlri
attention of: [Link] and·
the h~ an environtnent·_-iri- or_de~:.1~\fotus. the
cy ~f _this ·que~tion an d also to
public· op ini on ori the impbrtclnCe·•aii-aSfugen
' or be st be- .sofved thr ou gh
ide nti fy_ tho se asp ect s o.f-,[Link]~_t ;~cll\-()nl}
ng conVinced of "the-need for
• int ern ati ona l co- ope rat iol l and ·agreement"? bei
international level in- ord er to
intensified act ion at the national, regional and
imJ>airment of the hu ma n
lim it an d, wh ere [Link], eli mi nat e the .
the natural surroundings in the
environment an d ll\ ord er to protect and improve-
Nations Conference o~ Hu ma n
interest of lllan".3 Accordingly the sai·d _United·
16thJUile, 1972 which is bei ng
Environment too k place at Stocldlolm O'Qm 5th to
•
. .
kn ow n as magna Cflrla of ou r environment~ •
ckholm DeclaratiOn which
~r e ~e cei-biin p~inciples embodied i!l the Sto
elopment. -Pri~ciple ~- of th~
gaVe im pet us to the C~ncept of su~tainable_ dev e vit al ren ew abl~
· l· t· n sta tes .tha t the Ea rth s capacity
to pro ducd p • · I - •
d- ec ara 10
.. ...
pract1ca1, restore . nnc1p ·~ 5 of the
•
'
· • b pre ser ved an·d wh ere ver b d · ch - t
res our ces e o:un~-nre~n1Ee~w~ab~le~re~s~0!!ur~c~es must e use . In SU ' a
way~ tha
....,.~.
b--m
-~--L'.l•LL..--.1.1.,._,
----~-------=~=-==-=~
 s aspect anu d1::>u ,..:,~1. '""...,...,,...-: - - - • • - - '""'~1r
. • •t Wi"thout the f1nanc1al assistance, . the
n 1n sprr1 . . . developing
.
find it difficult to fulfil the commitments 1n protecting and
environment.
Thus, these salient principles of sustainable developm~nt which have been
identified call for real action by all concerned. The t~sk is not th~t easy and
the real action of integrating the economic, social a nd environmental
dimensions pose challenges before us. So concerted effort~ by all both at ~e
national and international level to supplement the resolutions adopted at the
Rio Conference and then at Johannesburg is urgently needed. A multi pronged
I
strategy involving the legal process, the sensitization of industries and public
I
! •
participation more particularly at the grass root level should be adopted
I'
while addressing the environment and developmental needs of the country.
•I
.I II. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
'
The Precautionary Principle has been described as :
/"Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental
~a:neg_s~la~ ~f!cie1!~f~~ ce1fciiDtY ·sn~ hot £!,,gs~<:r~~~~Jof-
P?!tponing measures.. t~ __g_re_~e!lt _~1!!.~ron~~~t2l d~~~~~-t-~~!!'·. The I
implication of !his clu!Y is the deyeloEers mu~t assume from the fact of
deyel<?P,!!!-~~a~v!!Y that !!.~ ~E.V_irO_Ifill~nt m~ o~car ~d that thSY
s~~d !ake_!!eCeSSclQ7 act!~n-~o prev~nt_tb,gt_b.aOJl. This.,.Rri]\ci,J?Jewi? known
as- pr.e.s~l!ti.2.!1~ 12r~iJ2le"}
*7
•
Centre of International Envirpnmental La~ al~o defines .the principle in
the following words :
"The Precal!-~~~ary Principl~ means the rinci le of estab ·s i
., + t,?~e ~upt !11~as'lfe ~~!!_cipate1 p1:vent an~ a~ad:.the causes of
E:OVIr~nmen~ degJ;d~ti9_n _where tfie~e is [Link]!.den~e ~o identifv-.a
t:¥"-eat of senous or UTevers1ble harm to the environment if there is not et
0

p~f that=tfit'enViro~ent is bein2:,h~~d•.

Thus, ~e recautionary Principle sa s tha~ ,case of an~ possible threa!
,to the environment, e ~emost requiremen~ is ~hat precautlonary meas~~
should taken to revent and ~ttack ffie ossible environmental de adation.)
_ !fie P~:cautionaz_,prir.}cifil~s tg ensure that a sub~tagce gr
1v1tl_ posmg a threat to C environment is prevenfed from adve~e!Y
:t!ecting the environment, ever if there is· no conclusi','.g scientific p1'00f Iinking
1.
- •
Gurdip Singh, "Legal Status of Precautionary Principle in Environmental Jurisprudence•, V,
N.C.L.J. (2000) at p. 35.
2. This P~iple appeared in the Draft Conv~ntion for the Conservation and Wise Use of [Link]
prepared m 1991 by the_Center o~ ln~e~tional Environmental law, quoted by Gurdip Singh in
•Legal Status of Precautionary Principle 1n Environmental Jurisprudence•, v, N.C.L.J. (2000) at
p. 36.
 IO-LEGAL REALITIES
i ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND EMERGING SOC

gie~t.?.L~:p1age~ The wo rds

that partirulM sub sta~ ~ or . ctctivit>'._ to_ enyimn
vities intr odu ced as a res'ult
's®stance' and 'activity' imp ly substances and acti
of human inte rven tion .
men tal pro tect ion occ urre d
A bas ic shif t in the app roa ch to env iron
con cep t was bas ed On the
initially betwee1: 1972, an·d 1982. Ec!rlier the
Prin cipl e 6 of the Sto ckh olm
'as • • tive ca acit ' rule as rev eale d from
Hum an Env iron men t of 1972.
felaration of the Uni ted Nat ioM Con fere nce on the
vid e poli cy mak er~
The said Principle assu med tha t science cou ld pro
roac hing upo n the cap acit y of the
I

information and ~ea ns nec essa ry to avo id enc

sum ed tha t refe van t tech nica l
env iron men t t~ •a_ssimilate imp acts and it pre
ntal har m is-p redi cted -and ~er e
expertise wou19 be ava ilab le whe n env irof ime
id suc h har m. T~ mp has is
wou ld be suff icie nt tim e to act in ord er to avo
Prin cipl e of the Wo rld Cha rter
s_hifted to pre cau tion ary prin cipl e in the 11th 2
ure
1

ado pted in 198 2 by the Uni ted Nat ions Gen eral Ass emb ly whi ch
·for Nat
ing cou ntri es. Thi s shif t in
was ove rwh elm ing ly end orse d by the dev elop
ted Nat ion s Cor:iference on
emph~sis was late r on reit erat ed by the Uni
by givi ng utm ost imp orta nce
Environment and Dev elop men t held at Rio i_n 1992
tion whi ch spe aks abo ut this
to the Principle. Principle 15 of the Ri_o Declara
read s:.
ona ry app roa ch sha ll
"In ord er to protect the environment, the prec auti
thei r cap abil itie s. Wh ere
be wid ely app lied by States accordi~gly to
cR· of scie ntif ic
ther e are thre ats of rseri ous .or irreversible damage,·'Ia
• ing cost-effecting mea sure s
au ,. • -

certainty shall not be use d as reason for pos tpon

Cit SQt .,.

to prev ent environmental degradation".

bett er to err on the side of
The principle is ba ~ on_ the theory that '!t is
whi ch may ind eed bec ome
cau tion aq_d P.!event en__yii:911m,ental har m ,-~h o
irreversible' evic!e~t _tr.?.m !!1~ ob~e.~v.~ti?!!-,_~(Ql~ianBarto
~ e~n ciel e said~: - ---~
~ef~rring to the caus~s pf _emergence Qf .pre c~u tion
assessing the reco rd
"there is nothing to prevent decision makers from
tion on whi ch to reac h a
and concluding that there is inadequate informa
with some confidence
determination. If it is not possible to make a decision
ent activities that ma '
then it makes sense to err on side of caution and. prev y
d disc ussi on can be mad e at
caus e serious-0r irrev ersi ble harm . An info rme
resources perm it furth a
later stage when additional data is available or er
research". 3
.
. Thu(,f precauti onary rinci le underlin- e - to ado t envirorunent. al constraint
• d t • _sq_~~na • bJe gev elon mep t:)In v; 11 c· · ~• ·
;g,, or •~r- o _ac 1eve ~-- --~ / e or ztzzens Welf!,l!.._e roru
• . • es • scm -
n o India 4 the.. , Supreme Court accepter-I th e.. > recaut1onar
•
• • Ie-
0
v. Unio• r1nc1
ongw1 t e olluter ays rinc i~ as ~- . s stem n this case
. . , . - -
nal d N •
1. Gurd1p Singh, Envrronmental Law - Internatio 11 ational ~ersp ectiv e's (1985) at p. 212.
2. This ~orl d Char ter was adop ted by a majo rity votes with 18 abste ntion s and one
negative vote cast by the United States. .
Quot ed by Gurd ip Sing h in 'Legal St t us o Prec autio nary Princ iple in Envi ronm enta l
f
3.
Jurisprude nce, V. N.C. L. J. (2000) at p 37a
4. AIR 1996 SC 2715. • •
 - -- ___ ...,_O J
u. v~ .:>t:: Lung or an ind ustr y is kno wn, wha
'-J.a.
- - ·. u , .......... .........
t has to be seen is that if
the env iron men t is likely to suffer, the n wha t mitigative steps can
be taken
to offs et the sam e. Me rely bec aus e ther e will be a change is no reas
on to
pre sum e tha t the re wil l be ecological disaster. It is whe n the effe
ct of the
project is kno wn the n the pfincipl~eo,.,,,,..,,i'rSUStainable development wou -~-lffl"" :11 .. - --~
ld come
intO pla y whi ch will_ ens ure tha t JJlitiga~ive st~ps are and can ·be take
n to
pre serv e the eco log ical bala nce . [Link]. dev~!opment means
wh~t
typ e or exte nt of dev elo pm
· ··ent
----can
~ ,. -. -ta ,..~
e\ place whi ch can be [Link] ~~~ ~ Er
• ___ - - , _ _'"':Lr ·-[Link].,$.JD_..,.._WWW ....§!.:±A.,.-,.- _£i2 __ 42.4,e , if'0:4
__~~~ -~~- ----~
Ilatufe"/ ecdlbg)' wit h -9r _with2~t_rr1
~ - ..:i,""-Q ·• - '-'"•
itig_a~ion".4 . •
a...,•, .:;·• - ,.;::;,n•;;ti:,,, ~;-<: -~~..,-~---- - ' ---~ •

Ci#' •bl SM k£4Ca;; zx • ___c...zc_:: ::v_ .¥ . -

.....--· T ._§.~~~~ "°"'-'
Thu s, after goi ng thro ugh the abovernentioned decisions of the ap·e
x Court
it can v,ery w-ell be con clu ded tha t th_e precau~tionary· prin cipl
e certainly
imp ose s duties to take precautionary measures to
the dev elop men tal activities -sq a~ -not to pose· a thre at to the environ
Wiit&f ,@guf$5[ti:1ii!!, •e :·
ment or
the ecology whi ch inay be irreversible.
OLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE1
The 'Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development' (OECD)
for
the fi~st tim e u~~ 6·~ ~~~ ~-~ '§1 .l\f ~£. ~~J riri ~!._ ~fi 1Ch ~ea ns .,
~tnal~the
1. Vellor Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, A1R 1996 SC 2715:. ••
2. AIR 2000 SC 3751.
3. AP. Pollution Control Board v Prof. M. V. Nayudu (Retd.) and others, AIR 1999
4. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Unio_n of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751 at pp. 3803-04. SC 812.
 352

• • . out the measure s which resulted

p~luter §!}oyJ<;!. bE:ar :xpen~es_ of c:rrzi:g also, i.e., the'lfaff fi callsedl O th~
in the dagtJ;lg~...We c:an reflect it in this t ythe victims of pollutio n but also the
eI\v\. ~i~ot only extends to compensaNe the basic question arises who is a
th d • d environment. ow
cost, to restore e amage . as ect what should the polluter pay for?
polluter and the other correspo ing p f nd the meaning assigned to the
• h f. t rt it is not clear rom
Regardin g t e irs pa . A strict reading of the meaning
• • 1 who the polluter 1s.
polluter pays pnnc~p . ot about the polluter, nor how to control
conveys that the principle invo~es n t to be borne by the polluter. So to know
the pollution, but_ speaks only tde cosd on the existing situation and prevailing
who the polluter {we have to epen . . .
•• A d the other 9uestion it involves t~ as,R~~ts, one.Jt_
market condition • .:_ regar s . . v• - •· ;;';i_dfue other one is that
that the cost to compehsat~ the _y1ct1~~ o(,[Link] F-= __ ......- : q ~ . .. ...
-the
=-=- cost of - restoring
,--. - the e~v~r2nm .----~1:n,
t damaged to its erev1ous state.
__ _ .. . •, G¼Mrc?:'&, -1 •

..-(H
~- ~-= ·t . .
"-'. owever, 1 1s. t,h:::se , .,.S......
u
preme Court which applied this principl e in concrete
. . • 1 h
~ape in 111,dian ~OUJicil_[or [Link]!!! _l#..3al _,:t\_£~ton v•. -~~zo~ e > ~ : ere a
writ petition wasJUed...PLiY! ~[Link],t<;![Link].t P.~~w ion. highhgh ting,t~e
woes oTJieJ?~E\e livl!,!g in_~in Jtx *qf_ £tleJ1llc al.Jnc4ts trtalgl~~ - In this
petition the ~upreme Court ,,_wgs _ap._gl['oa,Ql~d o~ b~half of_ th.!. Y!!l!~ to
~~Jn 4~, to p_e~t2.;~tl}e!iJt2tJit2rx_~}Jt1~s an~ Jt~e ~£Propry_ate
reme~u c~oiS) In .t:b,is-954 Jg~TIa.e.~:. £_o~1extend~_g-~';.£,I'Jrn:~ele o,f gb~olute
!ia'ffilfu, l~.1,d~~11 f'J~um l,&~~.wg2 hel~ that tbe mam~ ~ers of
. p..r9g_ucts clisc~~ ing__t9~tc,.~fJM~.ni§ 1qtp.,il}<;., r~g!on wo¥1£i_be_ 1!!1,ble.f,oL the
.- paY1!1 ~!_?f-~ oinp~n as _pe4_ tlg,~e~J>~2.l,ut~ liability ~!~2!!.9 do':11 ip ~e
Oleuln Gas Leak case. According fo this rule, once the acttv1ty earned. on 1s
- lf""

hazardo us or inherent ly dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is

liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity
irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonab le care while carrying on his
activity. The_rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on.
Thus, this new _r~~gy w;hieh~s-;based..:[Link].. .il1~... poctrine of absolutE:.Jiability
wasd-:-~ter_. on stresses}jn t11~ !n4.~'!.'1._CE.._UE.[Link] of }!:,nviro f.~S.'f~ (\~tf~,i l!JJ,nion of
IJ1g;JlJ
In this case holding the respondents liable, the Supreme Court observed :
" Once the law in Qleum Gqs L,ats ~"'1Se is held to be the law
applicable, it follows, in the light of our findings recorded hereinbefore,
th~ resimudents are absolu.t~lY-. liabl~_to co_~[Link]..fo.r [Link] caused
~r, to_ the villag1:~s ill: !_h~ _a_f~c!eq__ar~. to tbe· sojl a!!d. to ~e
uncle~ ~~rwjMer anq h~l}£~, .they are bound to take all necessary measures
t; ~E:move ~e ~uds_e and _o~her pouutants
Ty:1¤&..'fu the"'ille ded area alld
also tg,_defray the CPst of the r<:medial me~sures requir~d t~ie~to;~ti,e s~
Jlt.e un~erg ro~~ ~a~;~~~-c~s. s;cti~n; -3 ~d. 4 ;;; th~- ED~ironJllettt
• -rn 1 nnt' c-r 1 ,1 Ate.
 :E DOC TRI NE OF PUBLIC TRU ST
't~ e Doctrine of Public Trus t is base d on the noti on that _'the p~b lic has
a
r1g_h!_ to ~xp_~~-~e_rt~~I}_land s and natu ral t<:> __ !~~1!1 __!~e1r ~atu ral
char,acteris~I~~·- and this is find ing a way into the law of the
IandJ"Th'e
Gov ernm ent as a trus ty to these natu ral resources is und er an obli gatio
n to see
that ther e is no deviation from, this and such prop ertie s are not used
for othe r
purp oses except for use by ·the general public. This doct rine whic
h is of very
anci ent orig in has been recognised and appr oved by the Supr eme Cou
rt for ttle
first time in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath5 for prot ectin g the natu ral reso
urces.
,, -!he orig in of the doctrine d~tes back to very ancient days whe n the
ancient
Rom an Emp ire deve lope d a legal theo ry ~!lown as the "Do..ctrin
e of Public
T~s t". It was foun ded on the ideas-· that certa in com mon prop ertie
s such as
rivers, seashore, forests and air was held by the Gov ernm ent in trust
eeship for
the free and unim pede d use of the general public. Our cont emp orar
y concern
abou t 'the envi ronm ent' bears a very close conceptual relationshi_p
to th,is l'=gal
doctrine. Und er the Roman law these resources were ':'\.ther own ed by
no one (res
~io us) or by ever y one in common (res communious] V
Und er the English Common Law, however, the sovereign coul d own
these
reso urce s but the own ersh ip was limited in nature, the Crow n coul
d not grant
1. (1997) 1 sec 388.
2. Ibid., at p. 415.
3. (2004) 6 sec 402.
4. Ibid., at p. 407.
s. (1997) 1 sec 388.
6. (1997) 1 sec 388 at p. 407.
 these propertie s to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public
int~sts in navigation ~r fishing. Resources that were suitable for the~ uses
were deemed to be held 1n trust by the Crown for the benefit of the publi~
Historical backgro und of the public trust doctrine has been given by Prof.
Joseph L. Sax of Universi ty of Michigan in the following words :
{:The sourc~ of m~d~m public trust law is found in a concept that
rec~ed much attention in Roman and English Law - the nature of
property rights in rivers, the sea and the sea shore. That history has been
given consider able attention in the legal literatur e and need not be
repeated in detail here. But two points should ~e emphasi zed. First,
certain interests such as navigati on and fishing, were sought to be
preserve d for the benefit of the public; accotdingly property used for those
purpose s was distingu ished from e eral ublic property which the
s--.---.:.
ere1 _cou routinely grant to private OJY_pers~ Second, while .it was
_ _ _ _ ___::,._:::._.. .:::c:=~:..__ -=-=~:;::.::: :___
understo od that 1n certain common propertie s - such as the. seashore ,•..
highways an-d running water 'perp~tua1 use"was-dedicated· to the public', it
has never been clear whether the public had an enforcea ble right to
prevent infringem ent of those interests. Although the State- apparent ly did
protect public uses, no evidence is available that the p blic right could be
legally asserted against a recalcitrant gov~rnmen~ .1 ,.- -- - --
,...
This doctrine has also further been applied ~y A rican Courts which
have given an expande d meaning to the doctrine of public trust ~d thus the
judicial concern was raised to protect all ecologically importan t lands. As
mentioned above though the doctrine was in existence from Roman Times, the
America n Supreme Court in Illinois Centrt;1l Rail Road Co. v. People of the
State of Illinois 2enunciated it in its modem form where the court held :
'The bed or soil of navigable waters is held by the people of the State
4

in their character as sov~reign in trust for public uses for which they are
adapted..... The State holds title to the bed of navigable waters upon a
public trust, and no alienation or disposition of such property by the ~e
which does not recognise and is not in execution- of this ·trust, is
If perm~ssible. "3
However, the decision of the Supreme Court of California in the Mono Lake
Case 4 is noteworthy which has been cited by our apex court in Kamalnath's
Case 5 and [Link] Forum v. State of A. P. 6, where the Court summed up
the substance of the doctrine as such :
1. (1997) 1 SCC 388 at p. 407. Also [Link] L. Sax, "Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource
Law: Effective Judicial Intervention" Michigan Law R~view,-Vol. 68, Part I, at p. 473.
2. 146 US 387 : 36 L Ed 1018 (1892). This case has bene cited by our Supreme Court in Intellectuals
Forum v. State of A. P. (2006) 3 sec 0549 at p. 574.
3. 146 US ~87: 326 L Ed. p. 1018 and p. 1033.
4. National Audubon Society v. Supreme Court of Alpine country 33 caili 3d 419. This case is known as
Mono lake case.
5. M. C. Mehta v. Kamalnath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
6. (2006) 3 sec 549.
 It is said stabil isatio n even at today 's atmos pheric .
reven I h conce
t additi ona green ouse warm ing of .the atmos phere It ntratio n will not
P · d L ld
• •
the pace and magn 1tu e or such warm ing. stabil isatio n at cou
h" h
moderate
dioxid e levels are expec ted to lead to greate r warm ing Scient1g · t
er carbon
. . . .
active 1n this field believ e that a failur . , • is s w h o are
. . e to stabil ise carbo d. .d
concentrations will lead to progr essive ly rapid and extensive climatench lOXl e
ange.
--ll"'.llct of Climate Change

V~[Link] studies, repor ts an~ asse~sme~ts made so far on the possible impac
t
of climate ch~g e prese nt a ver~ grim ~1cture and the gl<!~~l climate chagg
e
has bec?m e 0:1)-~ ~f !,he_ J)lo~t §~r1ous e}:\y1ro(U}lent41 c~c;~_tn~«~f ow_lim~.
The
tonsci ousne ss i~grl'!"':~!l_g WQ!°ld <;>~~r f~ 'ID..9 e~sta nd,~e xmss jble. .fajl
12
•
out.
Studies i:se.x..e.a~-that4tends iJl.J!\g_ phx~ic..al ..and biolog1£aj em'Jtonment
- ·# - , . . ; . - and
,,'Wl'Ji#..-. ., ._,..,,.,.,...,....,... ,.

the_ir relation~h~£ to...

- ~. . . .

slj!Jla~-clij}ng~s h~~c: i.ncrea9 ~d_gi:eatly and the

iecent regio~~l ch,2-agrs
1
!~
te~er 4t_!!r e 11,~ ve_,. hap~ ,ipjf [Link]..oa.
physical '1,P...£lbiological ..systems.
I

~s menti oned earlie r P£Ojectio11s _!>y .1£.C...C...of ~U~l:J:f~ i1!~9~i..~ate for

the .f}i1Fu.t::7~ ~~cades, a warm inegf ~P.5>:t!.-t o~-~ -~e}s~~~!-c~.£aE,e is
grojectec} an~ i( e[ffi§si2ns are maint ained ~y,el. a .f1:,rther w~n g ~~t.!h~ttl~oof
.~f_O J,£~ c':,.l!i'-!-5 £er ~eca':!_e ~o;tld 1?_~ e~e d. Depenffe._ng_yp.[Link]~pecific
emission sc~~~ o, ~~!i _~cr ~~ in. ~ f ~ } V i l ~ d . Th; [Link]
further says_ c~:mtinue~ gr~n !i~ ~mi!s io~ a~ o_r abo,.¥,~ cm:r~ n~tes
would cau!e furttte r W: ~ an~ ind~S~,.~.a!!t,cha~ es 1;he g~o~ ~T1a
te ').c
system durll_l ~1st cen iliat would ve likel be lar er than those opsei:
- .,,,,.,
ved
i uring _ e 20th cenbtfY==-
_.

As per the fourth As,s~ssl!!~~t~eos,,rt, Il!~~ p~sif ic .. ~fgJ: .I[t.a~.....is now

availa~le ac:o~~_: an~tg f~,.S: OI!>W Jini ~ruw tte of
~tpre 11!1,P~, in9~.£Img.~[Link]~Jgs uot cov~r~[Link]\B!:e.V~09ffe~~~~~l!l@t. Thus,
1

key ~di~ g re~d~!!S.!J:te ~_p.~c~ q{cli00p~~ ~01ange o~U e .GJ~ ~ry on

the _sx~t~m lik~EC~~ste~~.I ~oodJ .£.Pe~ ,_I~§ .ttY, sE;lll~~n,!, and :~
'

0 l
~ ..c~e_!y, he~t~ ~~er~c. ar~ ~_yaj k~. Durin g this period the ecos~ ste~
15 expec
ted to under go unpre ceden ted chang es globally and with the nse m
temperature, the ecosy stem struct ure and functi on will be greatly affected and
tber~ will be nega ·ve impac t on the biodiv ersity and ecosystem g?°ds_ and
s~rvices. Altho ug crop produ ctivit is ex ected to rise mar inall in IIUd
to
high latitudes, the •wer latitu de will ex erienc e low production. oasts are I
:I
E_rojecte O e exposed to increasing risks inclucjing coastal erosion and
I

I .,
\ ~ y millions more peap1e than toda are ro·ected to experience floods eve
year [Link] to the rise in the sea level he indus tries, societies and settlements
which are there in coastal and river flood plains are more vulnerable bfaus
their econo e
mies are closely linked with the climate sensitive resources) ~ -
: the millions of peopl e are expec ted to be severe ly affected as it proj~ ed
'~~-s~~1:._d~_!l~!Els wiJl ~q~ct tl\e_health statJ.1.a...of. the ueopl ~ ~duca tton,
r
 i:.1~ v 1~u,'4 Mt:.N TAL [Link]

•• • ·t· t .ves . an d 1·nfrastructure and econornic

health care,. public healthI in1lyI~assoc
1 t d and shape the health of the
1a e ·
deve
• •
,
lopm• ent whic
•
c ose
h are f ·tical conce ·
population ~~Ii, b~ area~
0
cri
· rn Simi
.
larly, water and Water
th dtang~ in the climate.
;9
will d O severe stres s by e ··
ort also rc;,j~c~s that bL J~ , ..at~
resource~ •1:ffi. ~rg ••
~t., Besides all- these, e rep ... - 5
th-E ast Asia , part1cularl m IEf e
~~\. rp ailabili in Central, Sout astal '. aSt an be at reate~ riS .
,
. ..
.
• areas w1
, 1."
!p_~~~ ~e
j .,J.J river basins wtll ~ec; ;:se, ~:at e c an~e is• also . [Link]~d t~ co!1;
.,20 mg, om •t __, 'i • Tees and the envi ronm ent asso 'i,~te
q w~}i ~ap1d
!
n and eConoiiiitdev~lopment."'--Researches ~o
11 _ press~res_ on ~atura-:- st e!~~ s will experience
\\ • urbamsabofh_ m,g~ nahs atl~ •• ti 'with asra rlan econ omie
11 show that co~ tnes predomm ~n. Y . - iffiately will have a negaf iive th
! i c,..t.~11.\.~'reducipg agi:icultl!lraJ. 2rod
uctiv1ty 'Yh1c1J.. u 1,!, z;;,;; \7- • .
, 't On • ...ecnn
- the •u • tb • This
i grOW ~_.;.will m
;..__lt #L
.;,.;;;.resu lowe r mco mej
1 O• e
']I 1~o,r--
rnr
pf1- i~aC OffiU
. at nsk of
:µt•' vuln e~a' i;fii~ wi"a tj~ ~d increase in the absol~te num ~r of peop
~-SL.

hunger.) \ ' ,· lI
I•
i
·• . ,
t
''
?1 E. Planning for the future . ,. , . ,.. , , ,. _ . .
'
tion o! global
• • J~ is de~; that if we. g~ .by pr~serit trend s, the stab ilisa
I,
'
I

Thus , given the

emissions is not that easy and it needs stron ger com mitm ents.
i
,]
entrations and
diffi ~ty Of stabilising global atmospheric ccirbon diox ide conc
I
I

•I
.
costs, many of
the benefits:Ot_early_ planning in reducing_eventual miti gatio n
Chan ge have
the nati~ ~ that si~ed _ the 1'.raIJle~ork ConveI\tic;>Il on Clim ate
:·1
i
J
n is urgently
begun tO reaiise that a co-ordinated :international cour se of actio
I needed. At the first conference of the Parties conv ened in Berl
in in ·1995, the
they did adopt a
;· • particij:,arits-oould_rfOfagt'eejiPOn Stiict-emissions Iimits,J>ut
Ij procedure for negotiating such limits anq set a dead line of
I 1997 for concluding
4 -• • ·• ··• - - - • - __ , __ ~.,.__..

I these ·negotiatio,~.3_ ., :. _·. .. • ' .,_,.. ' '·' -....• :o..,

..
. . . .- .. :.
,_ -
. . ·.··. . •.
- •- \ •
..
. .. .

Even as the negotiationsfor a: carbOn •~oxi emissions cuts

•
de targe t and
proceed, IPCC has stressed that ~any of the oUtlines of a globa] carbon.
dioxide strategy have already begun to take shape, and there·
Inally actionsare
.
I

I
I
that nations can take immediately. -These include : _,
ovemen!5
.I• , • • >

•( i) • Encouraging the· ad_option of those ener 8f-ef ficie ncy impr

•• • • \
I•••
I '
•
• • • .

•'
. tive in thelt
j·
• that, apar t from their green house benefits are cost-effec
ms to
• own right. This implies an active progr'ain of polic y refor
j

:
ards, and
J __ en~u rage ~ll~cos~ pricing of en~g y. to create efficiency stand
to 1m~lement rebate p~~ ams or other financial vehicles to encourage ,
. .. -. - ·
•- • adoption of energy-effie1ent technologies..... ·· . · . . . -. . .. .
-(iif" Suj,P ortin g expan~ed ~ar ch and deve 10P~ nt of alt~
tiVe energy '
• sources and energy-efficient technologies and establishi ng incentives to
i encourage the penetration of Utese into energy Jnarkets.
·
t 1. [Link]/press/ar4, "!s!ted on 20.11.2008. • . . - ..• . ·
I
[Link]/press/ar4, v1s1ted on 20.11.2008.
;:;,;v~mmentaries on Water, Air Pollution and Envirorunent (Pro ·
J 2.
3. Bdition,
 ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE 389

(iii) Specifically promoting policies to encourage the replacement of long-

lived energy, transportation, and ind ustrial infrastructures at the end
of their life cycles with efficient, low-emission technologies.
(iv) Supporting continued climate research and monitoring so that the
mechanism and magnitude of climate change are better understood and
so that the effect of climate can be better planned for.1
However, it is clear that even if nations agree to take these actions and the
international community is able to negotiate target for future emission cuts,
there is little reason to believe that global action will be quick enough or
effective enough in the short term to avoid a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations from their present level. It is also no denying the fact that
I
_... taking the present scenario, the global warming is a long term phenomenon
whose mitigation must be seen in a long-term context.2
I

,.
/ ,· •t u,~.[Link],. ,
•

F~~n ?~ ~e ~"'"o-..c, ~cu [7

4

'

Concerned with the fact that the human activities ha!~een substantially
increasing the atmospheric concentrati6ns of green h2use gases, that these
mcPeases enfian~e the niforaf• ;e;n house eff~[Link] [Link] w""ITI result on
avera em an addition • __ .· LQ.g of th~.Eaitij's surface· and atmosp ·ere and
mai adverse_!x af~c! natqL_ ec<2S_y_s_t~_r~s at}d hpffi~d~ the United Nations
adopteJ! a Framework Co vention on ~limate_C_han e which was o ened for
si nature • it~ in 1992 ~~re ...._55, governments signed the
cgnventio!l an sirice· then over r ave e atified or othepyise
committed themselves to this convention. Their ru
. - ; ~ ~ ;~ -_;_ ............,.........,.....,_ ..
was to
J I •
n
--house aslconcen!(_ations in the. ~ID.9..§PJlere at that wou t
_'
9 a
ergus,?humana
,interf~r~w;e_with the climate s stem. This is reflected in
ttt:e QQJ,e~tiy~ _9£ ~he conven!i~n which says that "the u _• • • •
if
C:onventiQ~ is fo acrueve accordance with the..:.~ ~Vant provisio~ of ~e
convention, stabilisation {i,f green house gas con~tral1ons ii\ (fi~ _ here at
a level that wou revein -angerous ant ro o enic interference with the
clim~te S stem The conv_!!ntip,aiOefi e_s "c}!Ta~e chan+s-e" to me~~gtang_~
nf &hroate which is a~[Link] d4rt:<;tlx or indirectly ·to human ·v·t that
f alters the com osition of , e ob a mos ere an w ich is in addition to
~}ural climate variability tpb,!erved ov~ com ara~le time _eriods" and the
c.,l~yste~· .Ras been ciefn1ed to mean t e tota it o s _here,
~~osi:~re, ,!?iospher~ and[e:[Link] and ilieir~Tn~ra~[Link]". -\ 5
.. •

In ~rder to achi~Y,e the objective of the ConventioJt and to impleJ?;nJ, its,

P!_OVisio~, the COJ!~tion 1r!quires that ~t,?artie~ should f'c; ect th • e
s s for the75enefit ' - e~ent and fu • of humankind, on the
' ,.
1• Lal's Commentaries on Water, 1\ir Pollution and Environment (Protection) Laws, 4th Edition,
2000 p. 71 at pp. 76-n.
2• World Resources, 1996-97, Oxfor,d University Press, 1996, quoted in Ibid., at p. 77.
3• United Nations Framework Con'vention on Climate Change, 1992, Article 2.
4• Ibid, Article 1.
5. Ibid
 l

. common but
• ·th t h e1r • -differenti'at
_, ... _ ecl
e uit and in acco~da~~:p:~nities. Accor~jngly th~e. deveI~
sibi ittes an reseecttve - - ~ 0
bating ,chmate C ange and th i),'
y parties sho~ld t~½~_!he, ..~:r •;s; :e conVeritfQ(taisO r~~res a~
i:.~~-~ ects t ereo :~For the hut11ffej$ntiate~~m q,nsibili~ies -~~--;
n into ace .unt their ommQ}l , • ent nriorities, obJect1ves and
• 1 deve 1opm •!4 •
ecific national and. reg~o7t deveiop eeri~dical!,y
II
L
P2.12.~l:t~nd r
ircull:}st.a~c~s, all parties s eiice of th,e Parties n3tio~a!)nve~to~~es of
make available to the Conf~,!-, ,:;;s::==b.,. • ·n1<s of all green house gases~
. . f and removals Y.. si - ~\~.;. --~---'"' -- ·... g
em1s~,!9.D,§. ro~ sour~s . - - • b the conference of the parties"-~
comparable methodolowes to~ a,rg UP_<!l ,?Y ·-.. - -· --~ •f-- 'd - :n
Iii Carryliig"out ili~ coDVDitment, he Conveution fils_Q sre.. . .9., c~n~cting t
~~-~-.--........,.a;t...... ·-: • " d lso carrvout education, tra1n1n and
research and systematic observatlQJ\ an a ::.~~-=- r . •
-~
• • ......, - --'- ::> = ' a . t han e an ects. he conventio
public awareness [Link]:ammes on c11ma e-~ __ i1!@' n,_

ess:i, 'ie '!. ~-; : .° , e a iz§' w}li~li lS th~ suprepie ~dy_2£ the
Convention.._which shall k~p 1-?nder resi1Iar.r~v17w th~ un,_.Plelllfllti:[Link] oI the
Conventigp and any·related. legal instrument _that t!t~
,,9?!!.f~!;.I)ft,_O( P~s
.may '"~doe~,- and£ shall mak5= Wlt in its ~anda_!,e, ~e..decis1£r,ts.. necessary l?
~rom9~ the effechve im~IeD)ientaHon of the CpJlvent1Qn'.i •• - - • •
.! ;
rt _ _ I I 11• . !HUUS •1

This world convention has divided· the_ cq_un_t~ies into. two sets. On~ set is
called the Annex-I c2.4ntries or· the : industrialised--coun tries which are
re~Rons'ible•for mJst !'t~ea~~ated greenhO\JSe as emissio •• and have
been ~Red to reduce their emissions b 6- % b . The rest countries
inc:iif~India Cfi:l!'~ are called rion-Annex I countrieS:@_astern Euroe,ean
countries, w~~e ILl~.!~9 ~co~omi~--~~ltdown,h~.\s;d to reg..,Qcyd ewiasions
tiy default, _are called gcon:1e~•n 1Ffiajtjgp' aod are taken as·a 1se arate sub
c:,:tegOJX w:1\;@ii flie Annex
l.J.i&f.J · ·• · . . .' ;E;--=. • _..
I •
l
' ~d ~~~::::tr;;iise~alCoW ltri~ JsJ :~ommitt~d •
. nanc1 resources to meet the d
0 ; n~W
...,.i-_ _..... ......- - --:
,.
c,ountry parties in comnlving [Link]~commuruc~ . . agre'7 full cos,ts of deyelop1ng_ .
_......_....... ..... & !..:..
....___ a d
~sisting;,!~l!?:erab!e. de_yel~P.~ CoUI\tries with .. -~--UP.-!i~!...th~mentilln.
! '

tadverse impacts of climate change·--romo ~- --~~ ~? ~ 2.~.}!2.~Pl<!.~!£!!..to ~y

5
I, .~propriate• the transfer of enviro;,!entallh~g, f~cibtating an~ f~cin~
!' . . how to developing country PartieS· d Y ~O~d technologies and know
including the transfer of technolo : an providing such financial resources,
- f. gy, needed by rle I . . to
'
~eet the costs_ o unplementation of the [Link] • , ve op~g _country parties
G. Kyoto Protocol V ,.S f C,t.C tine ts of the Convention. •

J I ~s m~nt~oned ea~~ie~,·- the 1992 World . . -- = --

Develo ment ado ted a conventio . Summit on Environment and

I
,

Nations Framework Convention on ~l~n clirnat c ange namely t e ruted

II unate Cha a
• £
'.ev1ew con1erence wo be ~ e d ft n e and it was decided tha~
t: --=:::-----:-~-:--- -===:--~~a=. er a pettod Of fi d" glY
ve years. Accor 1ll
1. United Nations Framework Convention on Cli
L 2 Ibid., Article 4. mate Change 1gg2 .
, Article 3.
i:
' 3. Ibid., Article 7(1) & (2). '
 THE CLIMATE CHANGE.
ATMOJPH~RIC POLLUTION AN D 391 s (
/
me wo rk Conventi·on on ct·1mate
aft er fiv e yea rs. of the ado pti on of .thi s Fra ·-- -
-
eL ~}]le thi rd conference of par ties . wa s hel d in Kyoto , Japan 1·n Decem·ber at
Ch ang and
• , . ing the las t five years wa s reviewed
1997 wh ere in the pro gre ss ma de dur 71
ing strategies and obJ·ectives for the ure ~
fut
future pla ns we re cha lke d ou t by fix tain
o Pro toc ol' suc cee ded in tak ing cer
\'
Th e out com e kn ow n as the "K yot I

el
of 5.2 per cen t in gre en hou se gas lev
!I

dec isio ns wh ich req uir ed a red uct i0n

The
e to 199 0 lev els du rin g 200 8-2 012, for the dev elo ped countries.
relativ
com mi tm ent wa s bro ken do wn for the Un ited States to 7 percent, for
reduction
ean Un ion 8 per cen t and for Jap an 9 per cen t and so on. The Kyoto I
the Eu rop
on thr ou gh cle an dev elo pm ent
'·

esa w gre en ho use gas mi tig ati

Protocol for plea
Project and Emission Trading. On the
mechanisms Joint Im ple me nta tio n of per mi t
t the ir econom~c con dit ion do not
of cer tain dev elo pin g cou ntr ies tha en
to acc ept suc h com mi tm ent s and also the per capita emissions of the gre
the m s,
gas es of the se cou ntr ies are mu ch less tha n the ind ust ria lize d nation
houses h
ntr ies inc lud ing Ind ia and Ch ina we re exe mp ted fro m suc
som e cou
, wh ich the Un ite d Sta tes obj ect ed. The dev elo ped countries kept
commitments of the
lar ati on to be iss ued at the end
up pre ssu re to inc lud e in the dec to
com mi tted the dev elo pin g cou ntr ies
Conference, som e wo rds tha t legally s, the
hou se gas emissions. In thi s proces
take me asu res to cut do wn gre en ich
elo ped \~~ ~nt ries trie d to spl it the uni ty of the dev elo pin g cou ntr ies wh
d~v on to
s foi led ;Jr r. A.B . Va jpa yee , the the n Ind ian Pri me Mi nis ter 'too k if
wa oth er
sel f to wa rn the con fer enc e tha t the re wa s no que stio n of Ind ia and
him
g cou ntr ies com mit tin g to red uce emissions'.1
develo pin
ies, •
th the rat ific atio n by the req uis ite num ber of par tic ipa tin g countr
Wi
ent ere d int o for ce on 16 Feb rua ry 2005. But the Un ited States of
the Protoc ol
lar ges t em itte r of gre en .ho use gases has not ratified the protocol
America, the gases
erv ed tha t if emission of gre en house-
and still opp osi ng it. it has bee n obs mit,
the per iod fixed in the Kyoto Sum
is not red uce d con sid era bly wit hin on the •
ext ent wh ich will jeo par dis e the life
global warffiing ma y increase to an ears
.. Bu t to ou r utt er sur pri se the cal l giv en at Kyoto has fallen into deaf
earth the
is evi den t fro m the fou rth As ses sm ent Re por t pre sen ted by
which
nmental Pan el on Climate Ch ang e.
lntergo .. ~er me
2~ Pro toc ol has dev elo ped me cha nis ms wh ich all ow for s_o
. ~}1 s.
ity in ho w cou ntr ies ma ke and me asu re the ir em iss ion s reduction
~exibil
inc lud e the Joi nt Im ple me nta tio n and the Cle an De vel opm ent
These
Un der thi s Me cha nis m, a dev elo ped cou ntr y wit h qua nti fie d
Mechanis m.
lim itat ion and red uct ion com mit me nts wo uld take up the green house
emission
uct ion pro jec t in a dev elo pin g cou ntr y. Jfh us, the CDM is a flexible
gas red
un der the Ky oto Pro toc ol wh ich erfa'6Ies industrialised cou n~i es tb
arrangem ent
ir em iss ion red uct ion obl iga tio ns by enc our agi ng ado pti on of
meet the
5 l;lstainabl~ and· env iro nm ent all y frie ndl y
tec hno log ies in dev elo pin g
countries.'
.
1. The Hin du, date d Nov emb er 8, 2002
 }:\.uu ,.,
411
THE LAW
CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY AND

and ind igen ous com mun itie s in the

nee d to facilitate the par tici pati on of local ,er C<
::,
pro tect ed areas. I

1-1. BIOLOGICAL DIVERISITY ACT, 2002

on Biological Diversity, 1992
In pur sua nt to the Uni ted Nations Convention
fou nd it necessary to give effect to
and bei ng a par ty to the convention, Ind ia
ersi ty Act, 20022 was pas sed by
the con ven tion and thu s "The Biological Div
Act says that
the Ind ian Parliament. The Pre amb le of the
1ry Pt
ogical diversity, sust aina ble
"~ Act to pro vid e for conservation of biol
sha ring of the benefits aris ing
use of its com pon ents and fair and equitable
dge and for mat ters connected
out of the use of biological resources, knowle
the rew ith or inci den tal thereto".
access to Genetic Resources and ;ity (
Thus, the Act was pro mul gate d to regulate
Sharing arra nge men ts, apa rt from
asso ciat ed kno wle dge and ens ure Benefit
term conservation and protection of
dev elop ing policies and programmes on long
dge.
Biological Resources and Associated knowle

A. Sal ien t Features of the Act

Cen tral Gov ern men t afte r an Poli<
The legi slat ion has bee n bro ugh t by the
ces s wit h the foll owi ng sali ent
ext ens ive and inte nsiv e con sult atio n pro
fea ture s:
(i) to reg ulat e access to biological reso
urces of the cou ntry wit h the pur pos e
out of the use of biological
of sec urin g equitable share- in, benefits arising aw J
to biological resources;
resources; and associated knowledge relating
biological diversity;
(ii) to con serv e and sustainably use
to resp ect and pro tect kno wle dge of local c~m mun itie s rela ted to
(iii)
bio div ersi ty~ :ern:
s wit h local peo ple as con serv ers of
(iv) to sec ure sha ring of ben efit and information relating
biological resources and holders of knowledge
to the use of biological resources;
men t of areas imp orta nt from the stan dpo int itio~
con serv atio n and dev elop
(v) m as bio log ical div ersi ty
of bio log ical div ersi ty by dec lari ng the
her itag e sites;
tation of thre aten ed species;
(vi) pro tect ion and rehabili
scheme of
(vii) inv olv eme nt of
institutions of self-government in the bro ad
tion of the Act thro ugh con stitu tion of com mittees.3
the imp lem enta
e concerning access to genetic
The legi slat ion prim aril y add ress es the issu
foreign indi vidu als, inst itut ion s or
reso urc es and asso ciat ed kno wle dge by
2006, Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Rep ort of the National Forest Commission, . .
1. .
Government of India, at p.276. ived the assent of the President of India on 5.2.2003 and
Act No. 18 of 2003 which rece
2. , dated 5.2.2003.
published in the Gazette of India, Ext. Pt. ll, Sec.l
cts and Reasons.
3. Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Statement of Obje
 J I I
412 ENV IRON MEN TAL LAW

l\I companies, and equitable sharing of benefits arising

\ \ out of the use of these
resources and knowledge to the country and the peop
L \ 1 B. The Act
le. I

\ The Act consists of twelve Chapters comprising of 65

Sections. A~ usua l the
I I
Chapter one dealing with preliminary aspects prov
ides for sho ~ title, extent
and com men cem ent of the Act and also prov ides defi
I
\ nitio n of cert ain term s used
'
in the Act.
\ The Act defines 'biological diversity' to mea n "the
vari abil ity amo ng
living organisms from all sources and the ecological
I
com plex es of whi ch they
are part and includes diversity with in species or
betw een spec ies and of
ecosystems"2 and the terms 'biological resources' has
bee n defi ned to mea n
"plants, ariimals and micro organisms or part s thereof,
I

thei r gen etic material

and by-p rodu cts (excluding valu e add ed prod ucts
) with actu al or pote ntia l use
or value, but does not include hum an genetic materia1" 3

C. Regulation of Access to Biological Dive rsity

. The Act prov ides "no pers on shal l with out prev
ious app rova l of the
. Na~ onal Biodiversity Auth ority , obta in any biol ogic
al- reso urce occu rrin g in
ln~~a ~r kno wled ge asso ciate d ther eto for rese
arch or for com mer cial
utihs·at1o
d n or for bio- surv ey-a nd bio-titili satio n".4
• t
• ... ,t
I require to take the appr oval _of the Nati · The foll owi ng pers
onal Biod iver isty Aut hori ty.
ons are
(a) a pers on who is not a citizen of India·
I

(b) a ci~z en of India, who is a non -res iden t as

defi ned in Clau se (30). 0f
Section 2 of the Income-True Act, 1961;
(c) a bod y corporate, association or orga nisa tion ·
(i) not incorporated or registered in India; o;
(ii) incorporated or registered in Indi a und
in force which has any non -Ind ianer an~ l~w ~or
capital or management.5 the time being
part icip atio n in its share
The Act also proh ibits the tran sfer of
any biological resource for mon etar y co an ·ct y r~su
1
to t f . t of rese arch with resp ect to
rans errin g the resu lts to a non - ns1 •t·
erat1on and th
e proh.1b1t•
ion exte nds
corp orat e or orga nisa tion 'not regi ste c1d1zen: a non .d
' . . . -res1
re or inco rpor at d • ent Indi an, a bod y
any part1c1pa t1on in its shar e c ·t I
. e in Indi a' or with out
co11a b orat tve research project appr ovap1 db h
a or man ag 6
e y t e Cen tral G eme nt. How eve r any
. . . . '
1. B1ological Diversity Act, 2002. Statement of Ob' ove rnm ent and draw n
2. lbid.,Section 2(b). jects and Reasons.
_ _ _ _ __
3. Ibid., Section 2(c).
4. Ibid.,. Section 3(1) "Bio-survey" and "Bio-ut·1· • "
species, genes, components and extracts of 1 1sation mea
characterisation, inventorisation and bio-assa b.io1og1ca• ns surve y or coll •
s. Ibid., Section 3(2). l resource for any ectio n of species, sub-
y. purp ose and includes
6. Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 4.
I
 413
\ CONSE RVATIO N OF BIODIVERSITY AND THE LAW

ted
as per the _tlolicy guidelines specified by the Central Gover nment are exemp
V

from such prohibition. I

Th~ Act provid es for the prior permi ssion of the Nation al Bi~[Link] p
or
Autho nty for any person seeking any kind of intellectual prope rty right m
or
outsid e India for any inven tion based on any biolog ical resear ch .
2 Furthe r, the Act provid es that the State Biodiv ersity Board s be
inform ation. I
or
intima ted for obtain ing any biological resources for commercial utilisa tion
'

bio-survey and bio-utilisation for commercial utilisation.

Dfath oritie s under the Act

/ T~A~t- proyid e~ -for the~ establ ishme nt of a Natio nal Biodiv eJsity
4uthori_ty bx th~. ~eptr«;1l, Y.2\IBtDmerlt and State Bip~!versity~OflfPYs by
th~
tio_o:..._o.f [Link] versity
respec tive State Gover nmen ts and . also
enc -:z:
c: c =constilu
ss • i i ,....

Managemen,! Commi..tte<;s«.t_n Lo<;,.al bgdies. . . . . - .

T " W?sfi77W

(i) National Biodiversity Authority

•
The Act provid es for the establishment of an Autho rit to be called "The
NgtionalxJ>!AClfYersnx [Link],ri_ty" and the r~
0 ice O sue
7
, who
autho rity will
shall be an
I

be at,,CheM\lv-The Authorit~. shall consist of a Cha1rjs'erson

ilcal
e'mTnent ~rson in the fierd trcon: i'e&at fon alid sustai na6le use- of biolof
versit arid in matter s relatin to e uitable shar ~.....
=ma.e•m-:-b-ea!:rs=--=-t-o~or9e_;_a~~~~~b--~th._e~C~e•n--~G~oaiiv•er~~.:...:..i~~--..:-:-:---==~
Y!!IDStries O e Gpver nment of India as prescr ibed in the Act. and five non
officia l ers ., from amon s • •sts and specia lists havin j specia l
owled e in matter s relating to conservation o 10 101 -- etc.3 The
T.,.,.-.~--

the
I Act also prov1 s or e1r con 1 ion. of ervice, remov al, meeti n ,.s of
J

Afiih oJlV !c. fne' 'Xcir••afso p't°ovides a at10I\a 10 1vers ~

and
Xujho rity PW~~ o~titu ie a Q>..[Link] to ~eal w~ a robio_diversit
also may aeeq_m"f~il,,otf1cs~ 1(2)1:~~s For_~fficien.J:_,__ i~a'i; ge .9..f its
funcnoll§.
0
and Power s of the Authority
The WPzf Sipns ~pd_p ~e~ of tQe -~~t~oi:te;l filg_q!y__~r~y Aut!!.oritY, U!c~d e
re1a.{.ating,~cJivi~!~ refeJ;ied .to~in S£ctjpn!4'~, 4 and g a~~ te~t io~ issue
guidelin~[Link] to.!!o_!oJj._c~ .r~s2 u~ ~d for fair and eq?ita ~e benefi t
~Fn g and also gr~t}ngrizaEE:.2_~1 for.~4 .,et;.t~ ng any..~<;\iY.~!y rel~'1'.ea·~o in
~tio~~ ,.4_cl !l~.§. 4 The Nation al Biodiversity Autho rity may also:
1tI;i
advise the Central Government on matters relating to the conservation
g of
of biodiv ersity, sustai nable use of its compo nents and equita ble sharin
b~efi ts arising out of the utilisation of biological resources;-J) l
-·
·- ·--
1. Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 5.
2. Ibid., Section 6. ty has been set
3. Ibid., Section 8. As per the provisions of the Act a National Biodiversity Authori ity is in
1st October, 2003 and the said Author
up at Chennai, vide Gazette Notification dated
and Benefit Sharing as related to genetic Resourc es and
process of developing norms for Access
Associated knowledge. ,
4. Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 18(1) and (2).
 414 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

.,J. -[Link] the State Governments in the selection of areas of biodiversity£

. ~v1 f the management o
unport~ce to be notified as heritage sites and measures or
such he1itllge sites;) l t th
t rform such other functions as may be necessa ry to carry ou e
pro ons of the Act.1) \.. . ma take any
Further, on behalf of the Central Government, the Authority . Yh .
measures neCessa~J to oppose the .grant of intellectual prope~t~ ng •t any
country outside India on any b1olog1cal resource, 0 btained from. Ind 1a or
ry~ . . •
f
knowledge associated. with . .
such b1olog1ca . -1
resource
which is derive rom
lndia.1' •1
• •t • as menti·oned
•
I ,
The Act further provides that for carrying out the act1vi ie~ .
.
in Sections 3, 4 and 6, the person 1ntend1ng . to d o mus t ap ply to the National
..
Biodiversity Authority for approval and such authority after rece~ving th.e
. .
apphcat1on, may after making . sueh enqu1r1es• • as 1•t may deem . fit and if
necessary after consulting an expert committee constituted .!?r this purpose, by
order, grant approval subject toe:: any regulations made in this behalf or. may
reject the application.3 ~l!rther, withoutet)l~ permissi9n .~! the Nati~nal
2
Bi2diversity .t\.q,thori~M--n<? persgq who his been z.1gn~ed aperoval per th~
~ovisis>n~ [Link].,..und::.J-ec;ttoJl-_~ ~,!lall JJ)n§.W &llY biolog~~.g}J~source ~r
K!}9~Iedgg as~ociated_Jhe:1;eto..~hic£)t, ~hLz~M,l?~ct ~~t~~S,.9f ~11e~
0

appro':~l- 4_ For obt~.n~_p-J!e~filiS§iO~ _for such transfer,_ the e~rson co~~f_!led

shotila apply tg the"""National Bjgdiyecsi!Y AH!ll2tit~ in t!}e prescEped manner
th: Auth::>,ri!Y fil~l ag£I,9,.v~l or ,rej~~t Jhe a1212licati3n [Link]<i[lg
E:~quines and consultip,g •o/itl1 the~~xe~~f~~-e..ii,i!Tc!_ee!;µ~ fit:..
~ermination of equitable benefit' sharing
While granting approval under Sections-19 and 20 of the Act, the National L.

Biodiversity Authority shall ensur-e that ~e terms and conditions subject to

which approval is granted secures eq4itable sharing _of benefits arising out of
the use of accessed biological resources, their by-products, innovations and
practic~~ associated wit~ their use and applications and knowledge relating
I thereto 1n accordance with mutually agreed terms and conditions between the
person applying for such approval, local bodies concerned and the benefit
i
I

I I.I claimers. 5
I I
i, The benefit sharing which shall be given effect in all or any of the
,I .
I I

followi_ng m_anners shall _be determined by the National Biodiversity

Authonty which may be subject to any rQgulations-
'
(a) g~an~ of j~int owners_hip of intellectual property rights to the National
B1od1vers1ty Authority; or where benefit claimers are identified t
0
such benefit ·claimers;
1. Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 18(3).
2. Ibid., Section 18(4).
3. Ibid, Section 19.
4. Ibid, Section 20.
5. Ibid, Section 21(1).
 415
CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY AND THE LAW

(b) transfer of technology;

(c) location of production, research and development units in su~h areas
which will facilitate better living standards to the benefit claimers;
(d) association of Indian scientists, benefit claimers and the local people
with research and development in biological resources and bio-survey
and. bio-utilisation;
(e) setting up of venture capital fund for aiding the cause of benefit
claimers;
(f) payment of monetary compensation and other non-monetary benefits to
the benefit claimers as the National Biodiversity Authority may
I deem fit. 1
Where any amount of money is ordered by way of benefit sharing, the
t
National Biodiversity Authority may direct the amount to be deposited in the
National Biodiversity fund.

~ t e Biodiversity Board
By notification in the Official Gazette, the State Governll}$.Jlt.. ·may
•
~tablish :~tate Biodiv~rsity B<;?¥4" ~1:-~ _the, 1"\;ct.d,,office~~e s~j_9-.J3oar~
•

will be decided by the concerned State Government. As per the provrs1onthere

~fiould 5l5e ·no Statet",._B~-=- - U~ig_n ."I;;.ritgry and~- the' a iii
Biodiversit Author·t shall· exerc1se·the .-- owers ·and erform the functions of
I • - ,,-.i. • - ,...,,,,,,,,

a State Biodiversity Board for .Q19 t Q ~ . . - -

r+rs -- - -• • ;uuS# ~ - ,,. ,,. ,

The State Boai:d shall consist of a Chairpersgn, who shall be an eminent

person having_!d~g4a$ J~,1:l.2..~';!ge ahd experi~nce 'in the cons~~~tlgn and
s~§'fainable use,.of biol°:Pl1~!u:f~r,sitX,.~nd •in ,P1%:tt2:sjela)~s t2 ~~9J!'!,b!e .
s~:rins [Link],ts and~!J~t-m~~e than !Lve ex-<Jiti~f~ .w$e~t,e~ 1o~pe ~peoin~~~
the ~ ~ ~ e n t to~~l;Sffi.\:.•jp~ cpi[lJ0.E:.!:.Ile.S. deE~euts of th;E! _St~ •
~ n t and J.i;ygj)gp-offic,l4l ~mbers to be appointed from amongst
ex2ertsjn matte;; relating to so.n~er;vatj_~':t..~tl~)i>l~gi5al di~ersit}'..et~?...,.Alt? a;ua;_
( ... ; ..

'Functions of State Board

The functions of the State Biodiversity Board shall be to---
~ v i s e the State Goyernment, subject to ¥\Y guideljnes issued by the
Ce~a} _Gov~!~en~, on matters r~lating to the conservation of
6iodiversity, sustainable use of its components and equitable sharing of ,
the benefits arising out of the utilisation of biological resources;
f ~egulate b~'..JP·~ting_9fEP.P!_oyals or otherwise i:equests for commercial
utilisat1on o bio-survey and bio-utilisati_Qn of any biological resource
y Indians; l - - - -- -- --

1. Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 21(2).

2. Ibid., Section 22(1) and (2). So far Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Goa have
already ~tablished State Biodiversity Boards. . , 1 L •
lbid,Section 22(4). <>{, \, t , 0 - v, ru , 6 O
3. 'I\ •

if e I
416 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

kt/perfo rm such other functions as may be necessa~ to carry out the

""" Provision s of this Act or as may be prescribe d by the Stat£.
Govemment. 1
The Act also provides that the State Biodiversity Board may regulate the
activities of Indian citizens, body corporate organisat ion or a~sociatlo n
registered in India, related to obtaining of biological re-sources for= ~~ITI.1::!1-~rcial
utilisation . Such citizens, body corporate , organisat ion ~r associati o~ are
required to give prior intimation to State 1Biociiversity Bosrd-·ab outcilitai n~g
biological resources for comn;t~!Q~_y!jJjsat~~n. The _§tate Board, in consl!.lt~tion
with local 'tod1eSaha att~r making el1quires, iestrict- such , a~vity !! it is
contrary to the objectives of conservatiOI} ()~ s~s~ainable use of biodiver~ ity or
equitable sharing of benefits. 2 • - - -- -_ _ _ -

(iii) Biodivers ity Management Co~ttee s

The Act provides for the constituti on of Biodiver sity Managem ent
Committees by every local body within its area for the purpose of promotin g
conservat ion, sustainab le use and documen tation of biologica l diversity
including preservat ion of habitats, conservat ion of land races, folk varieties
and cultivars, domesticated stocks and breeds of animals and micro-org anisms
and chronicling of knowledge relating to biological diversity.3
Further the National Biodivers ity [Link] and the State Biodivers ity
Boards s~~l consu~t the Biodiversity Managem ent Committe es while taking
any ?ec1s1o~ relatmg to the use of biologica l resources and knowledg e
assoc1_ate~ wi~h such resources occurring within the territorial jurisdicti on of
the Bi~diversity Manag~me~t Committe e and such committe e may impose
collection fees for collecting biological resources from their territory. 4

E. Finance and Accounts of the Authorities and constitlltion of Funds

One of the important feat f h . .
. . . ures o t e Act 1s that it purports to establish
b1od1vers1ty funds at the natinn~ 1 c-'-"'~- ____J 1 _ , , ..