Pollution, Illegal Waste Disposal, And Wildlife Protection
⚖️ 1. Pollution Control
Legal Framework
Water Pollution:
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – empowers State and Central Pollution Control Boards to prevent, control, and monitor water pollution.
Air Pollution:
Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – empowers authorities to regulate emissions and enforce standards.
Environment Protection:
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – umbrella legislation for environmental protection and regulation of hazardous substances.
Constitutional Provision:
Article 21 – Right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Article 48A – Directive to protect the environment and forests.
Landmark Cases on Pollution
Case 1: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case, 1988)
Facts:
Industries along the Ganga discharged untreated effluents, polluting the river.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed closure of polluting industries and installation of effluent treatment plants.
Introduced “polluter pays” principle.
Significance:
Strengthened enforcement of environmental laws.
Judicial activism in controlling river pollution.
Case 2: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996)
Facts:
Tanneries in Tamil Nadu discharged untreated effluents into rivers.
Judgment:
Supreme Court recognized sustainable development and polluter pays principle.
Ordered treatment of effluents and compensation for environmental damage.
Significance:
Reinforced environmental protection as integral to development.
Case 3: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (Bichhri Village Case, 1996)
Facts:
Chemical industries in Rajasthan caused groundwater and soil contamination.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ordered closure of hazardous industries, remediation, and compensation to affected villagers.
Significance:
Clarified liability for environmental damage and expanded polluter pays principle.
⚖️ 2. Illegal Waste Disposal
Legal Framework
Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989 – regulate handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.
Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 – govern urban waste management.
Environment Protection Act, 1986 – authorizes central government to prevent illegal waste disposal.
Landmark Cases on Illegal Waste Disposal
Case 4: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)
Facts:
Leak of Oleum gas in Delhi from Shriram Food & Fertilizer Factory endangered public safety.
Judgment:
Supreme Court imposed strict liability on industries handling hazardous substances.
Emphasized absolute liability, even if no negligence proved.
Significance:
Foundation for industrial safety and accountability for hazardous waste.
Case 5: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1996 onwards)
Facts:
Illegal dumping and deforestation in forests of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
Judgment:
Supreme Court prohibited dumping of solid and hazardous waste in forests.
Ordered state governments to implement solid waste management rules.
Significance:
Reinforced waste management responsibilities and forest protection.
⚖️ 3. Wildlife Protection
Legal Framework
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 – protects species, habitats, and regulates hunting.
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – protects forests and restricts diversion of forest land.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) – implemented in India to prevent illegal trade of wildlife.
Landmark Cases on Wildlife Protection
Case 6: India Enviro Forum vs. Union of India (1999)
Facts:
Illegal sand mining and encroachment in wildlife sanctuaries.
Judgment:
Supreme Court restrained encroachment in protected areas.
Highlighted need for scientific management of wildlife habitats.
Significance:
Judicial intervention to protect wildlife habitats.
Case 7: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1996 onwards)
Facts:
Extensive logging, poaching, and illegal activities in forests.
Judgment:
Court issued continuous directives: halt illegal logging, regulate tourism, protect endangered species.
Recognized precautionary principle in wildlife protection.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing judicial oversight in wildlife protection.
Case 8: Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India vs. Union of India (2005)
Facts:
Illegal construction near Kaziranga National Park affecting flora and fauna.
Judgment:
Supreme Court prohibited constructions and emphasized buffer zones around protected areas.
Significance:
Reinforced habitat protection and environmental impact assessment.
🏛️ 4. Key Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Illustration |
|---|---|
| Polluter Pays Principle | M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Ganga) |
| Sustainable Development | Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum |
| Absolute Liability for Hazardous Industries | M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Oleum Gas) |
| Precautionary Principle in Environmental Protection | T.N. Godavarman Case |
| Protection of Wildlife and Habitat | WWF vs. Union of India, India Enviro Forum |
| Accountability for Illegal Waste Disposal | Bichhri Village, T.N. Godavarman Case |
🔐 5. Summary
Pollution Control: Judicial activism ensures enforcement of air, water, and environmental laws.
Illegal Waste Disposal: Courts apply absolute liability and ensure remediation.
Wildlife Protection: Judiciary uses precautionary principle and oversees enforcement of Wildlife Protection Act.
Judicial Principles: Polluter pays, sustainable development, precautionary principle, absolute liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments