Skip to main content

Notable case laws regarding environment

 Decided Case Law- 

Award of Damages- 

M.C. Mehta V. Kamal Nath [AIR 2000 SC 1997]

In this case, the apex court held that pollution is a civil wrong and by its nature, it is a tort committed against the public at large. A person who is guilty of causing pollution is bound to pay damages for the restoration of the environment and ecology. A person is liable to provide damages to the person who suffered loss by the act of the offender.

Pay compensation- 

M.C. Mehta V. Union of India [AIR 1987 SC 1086] (Sri Ram Food’s Case)

This case has helped in developing the concept of absolute liability. In this case, the Supreme Court held that where an enterprise is engaged in hazardous activities and it is causing harm to anyone as a result of an accident during operation such as leakage of gas, then the enterprise is liable to compensate all those who are affected by such accident and no exception can work as a defence.

Prohibition of Activities-

Subha Rao V. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1989 SC 171]

Pungent smell in the environment is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of a bone factory because the pungent smell from the factory was polluting the environment and making the lives of the people miserable.

Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum V. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 650]

A PIL was filed by the petitioner regarding the pollution caused by the discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries into the river, agricultural fields, open lands, etc, The Court held that though the industries play a vital role in the development of the country the industries cannot be given liberty to destroy the ecology, cause a health hazard and degrade the environment. Such industries are not allowed to function unless they install pollution control devices.

M.C. Mehta V. Union of India [AIR 1992 SC 382]

Educating people about the environment is necessary. In this case, the Supreme Court directed the government to spread awareness and knowledge for the protection of the environment through various mass media agencies and other mediums. The court also directed to make the environment a compulsory subject in schools and colleges.

Jacob V. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam [AIR 1993 Kerala 1]

Right to life includes the right to a safe environment including safe air, quality, safe from noise, and exposure to dangerous and disastrous levels of noise to unwilling persons amounts to a clear breach of the right to life which has been guaranteed under Article 21.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 2715]

It is one of the important judgments regarding the environment. This PIL was regarding the yellowing of the Taj Mahal. NEERI and Vardharajan committee was appointed to submit a report and according to the report submitted, the court found that the chemical, foundries, or hazardous industries were the major sources of pollution in the area. In this case, the Supreme Court for the first time recognized the concept of the polluter pays principle. The Court analyzed various factors before giving directions. The court ordered the industries to shift away or to use gas instead of coke and directed the industries to safeguard the interest of the workers.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding Counterclaims: A Comprehensive Guide

  Understanding Counterclaims: A Comprehensive Guide In legal proceedings, a counterclaim is a vital tool that allows defendants to assert their own claims against the plaintiff. This strategic maneuver not only defends against the plaintiff's allegations but also enables defendants to seek their own relief. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the intricacies of counterclaims, exploring their purpose, procedures, and implications in various legal contexts. Introduction to Counterclaims Definition A counterclaim is a legal claim brought by a defendant against the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff's initial complaint. It serves as a means for defendants to assert their own rights, defenses, or causes of action arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim. Purpose The primary purpose of a counterclaim is to allow defendants to present their side of the story and seek appropriate remedies or relief. By filing a counterclaim, defendants ca...
7 comments
Read more

Title: Understanding "Your Complaint has been Disposed under a Closed Complaint"

  Title: Understanding "Your Complaint has been Disposed under a Closed Complaint" When you receive a notification stating "Your complaint has been disposed under a closed complaint," it signifies the closure of the complaint you filed with the respective entity or organization. This phrase is commonly used by customer service departments, grievance redressal cells, regulatory bodies, or complaint management systems to inform complainants about the resolution status of their complaint. Here's a detailed explanation of what it means and its implications: Disposition of Complaint (0-7 days) : "Disposed" indicates that the complaint has been addressed, reviewed, and resolved by the concerned authority or entity. The closure of the complaint signifies that the responsible party has taken appropriate action to address the issues raised in the complaint. Closure Status (0-7 days) : "Closed complaint" indicates that the complaint resolution process ...
4 comments
Read more

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and inst...
10 comments
Read more