India as a country is known for its rich biological diversity, comprising of various flora and fauna. Numerous variants of foliage which aren’t found in any other country are still growing and evolving under natural conditions all due to the favorable geographical features that India offers. As India is considered to be an Agrarian Economy the climatic condition is an important factor for the growth and development of the country which unswervingly affects the country’s Gross Domestic Product (G.D.P.). Agriculture contributes to about 18% of India’s G.D.P. Thus, proving that the environment plays an important role in Indian Agriculture. Agriculture urbanization is another issue which causes a widespread threat to the environment. The increasing need for jobs pulls people from rural/ semi-urban areas to urban area which has led to urbanization. Urbanization calls for increase in demand of residential and commercial zones which has led to major cutting down of forests and destroying the natural ecology directly affecting the environment bringing about several problems that are responsible for the degradation of the environment. Thus, degradation of the environment and its disastrous consequences has been a matter of great concern for India.
- History of environmental law in India:
Environmental laws in India have been in existence prior to independence. One of the first laws to be enacted in Colonial India with relation to protection of the environment was the Indian Forest Act, 1878. The India Forest Act, 1878 was replaced with The Indian Forest Act, 1927. The main focus of both the acts was conservation of the environment.
Environmental protection also got immense recognition in the post-independence period when the Constitution of India was drafted. One of the most primal portions of the Constitution is the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). Article 48-A which is a formidable part of the DPSP says “the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country“. Protection and preservation of the environment was added with 42nd amendment in the Fundamental Duties enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Article 51-A(g) of the Fundamental Duties states that “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.” It is interesting to note that, fundamental duties are in agreement with the Article 29(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948[i]. In 1980 and 1990, a new trend of environmental policies was driven by Indian Judiciary. Article 21 of Indian Constitution has been expanded by judicial interpretation which and thus now Right to Life includes right to clean, health and pollution free environment.
Creating metamorphosis, the year, 1972, was significant for India concerning Environment Pollution. Being one of the signatories to the “Declaration on the Human Environment” adopted in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm (Sweden) from 5th to 16th June, India brought about major changes for protection and conservation of the environment. As an outcome a separate ministry namely The Department of Environment was established in 1980 to ensure conservation of the environment in our country which turned into the Ministry of Environment and Forests in 1985 and was later renamed as the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
In India, the regulatory authorities play an important role in ensuring environmental protection. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), established in the year 1985, is the apex administrative structure in the country for environmental protection. Winged with the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Boards, it is responsible for regulating environmental programme and enacting legal and regulatory framework for the same.
- Development of Environmental Protection Laws in India:
- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
This Act aims to protect and guard the wildlife of the country against extinction. With an objective to provide protection to the country’s biota, the Act further provides stringent guidelines to control poaching, smuggling and illegal trade in wildlife and its derivatives.
- The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (Water Act) and The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 (Water Rules)
The Water Act is one of India’s first attempts to deal with an environmental issue comprehensively. The Act and Rules have been enacted to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution in the country by formulating legal deterrents against the spread of water pollution. It further provides for the establishment of Boards at the Centre and State level intending to carry out the aforesaid purposes.
- The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (Water Cess Act) and The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 (Water Cess Rules)
The Water Cess Act has been enacted with an objective to levy and collection of tax on water consumed by the local authorities and persons operating and carrying on certain types of industrial activities including industries generating ‘hazardous wastes’, with an exemption to industries consuming less than ten-kilo liters of water per. The procedural standards of the Act are further empowered by the Water Cess Rules.
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Forest Act) and Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 (Forest Rules)
The Forest Act and Rules provide for the conservation of the country’s forests and regulating diversion of forestlands for non-forestry purposes. It mandates obtaining prior clearance from relevant authorities when a project falls within the forestlands.
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act)
With an issue in increasing pollution, India participated in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June 1972, to take appropriate steps for the safeguarding and conservation of the natural resources of the earth which, among other things, includes the preservation of the quality of air. The Air Act is thus a germination of the guidelines determined in the Stockholm conference. This Act provides for prevention and control of air pollution in the country by laying down guidelines and restrictions to combat such pollution.
- Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EP Act) and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (EP Rules)
The EP Act and Rules have been formulated to protect and improve the quality of the environment by setting standards for emissions and discharges of pollution in the atmosphere; regulating the location of industries; management of hazardous wastes, establishing safeguards for the prevention of accidents causing environmental pollution and protection of public health and welfare. It,, requires for obtaining environmental clearances for specific types of projects.
- Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
This Act aims to provide damages to victims of an accident which occurs as a result of handling any hazardous substance.
- Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (Noise Rules)
The Rules have been formulated to maintain the ambient air quality in respect of noise. The standards for regulation and control of noise-producing and generating sources are set under these Rules. These Rules authorizes the State Governments to categorize zones for implementation of noise standards. Further, it restricts the use of certain devices causing sound except with the permission of the authorities.
- Batteries (Management & Handling) Rules, 2001 (BMH Rules)
The objective behind these Rules is the proper management of discarded batteries, with a special focus on lead-acid batteries, and to provide an environment-friendly method for its disposal. Every manufacturer, importer, re-conditioner, assembler, dealer, recycler, auctioneer, consumer and bulk consumer involved in manufacture, processing, sale, purchase and use of batteries or components are circumferenced under these rules[ii].
- Biological Diversity Act, 2002
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is an outcome of the objectives enumerated in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity signed at Rio de Janeiro on June 5, 1992, of which India is also a party. This Act has been enacted with a purpose to conserve biodiversity, preserve the biological resources, manage its sustainable use and enable fair and equitable sharing benefits arising out of the usage of biological resources.
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
The Supreme Court of India, in a series of judgments, highlighted the need of setting up of special environmental courts, the first one being in 1986 in the Oleum Gas Leak Case[iii], and by the Law Commission of India in its 186th report in 2003. Finally, the National Green Tribunal has been established on 18.10.2010 under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources.
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has been enacted with the objectives to provide for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment protection and giving relief and damages to people thereof.
- E-Waste (Management) Rules 2016, (E-Waste Rules)
The E-Waste Rules aims at reducing the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment by specifying limits for use of hazardous material and enhancing environmentally sound recycling of such e-waste. These Rules are designed to enable recovery and reuse of the components or materials from the electrical and electronic equipment thereby reducing the risk of the wrong disposal of the hazardous waste in the environment.
- Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (BMWM Rules)
The BMWM Rules provides for code of practice for sound management, treatment and handling of biomedical waste without any adverse effect to human health and the environment. Under this Rule, the existing biomedical waste treatment facilities need to meet the set standards of emissions and effluent and install the continuous monitoring equipments. These Rules are applicable to all persons who generate, collect, receive, store, transport, treat, dispose or handle biomedical waste in any form[iv].
- Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (PWM Rules)
The PWM Rules is aimed at reducing uncollected plastic waste generated daily by targeting manufacturers and industries with a further objective to propel plastic waste minimization, source segregation, recycling, involving waste collectors, recyclers and waste processors in the collection of plastic waste and imposing absolute liability to compensate and restore the damage to the environment for the sustainability of the waste management system. It also mandates submitting an application and obtaining a certificate from the concerned authority by the manufacturers or sellers of compostable carry bags and products. These rules drive into its ambit every waste generator, local body, gram panchayat, manufacturer, importer, producer and brand owner.
- Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (SWM Rules)
The SWM Rules stipulates stringent standards for source segregation of biodegradables, dry and domestic hazardous waste in order to channelize the waste to wealth by recovery, reuse and recycle and facilitate the waste collection, treatment and management. It also aims to inter alia make the compost plants and waste energy plants economically viable and improve the gainful utilization of waste.
- Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules 2016
The rules are an initiative to effectively tackle the issues of pollution created by building materials, debris and rubble resulting from construction, re-modelling, repair and demolition of any civil structure. The key objectives of these Rules are to encourage an integrated approach to construction and demolition waste management and provide both general and specific guidance concerning the preparation of satisfactory environmental construction and demolition waste management practices for projects which exceed a specified threshold.
- Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016, (HW Rules)
With an aim to safeguard the health and environment from waste processing industry the HW Rules sets out guidelines for manufacturing, storage and import of hazardous chemicals and sound management of hazardous and other wastes by incorporating ways for prevention, minimization, reuse, recycling, recovery, co-processing; and safe disposal of such wastes. It mandates prior authorization by the concerned State Pollution Control Boards for disposal of the listed hazardous and other wastes.
4. International Treaties and Agreements on Environment to which India is a signatory:
Furthermore, to the treaties mentioned above, India has also been a part of the following international treaties concerning the protection and preservation of the environment:
a) Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1987[v]:
The Montreal Protocol was accessed by India on 19 June 1992. It was shaped to reduce the production and consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) such as Chlorofluorocarbons, Carbon tetrachloride and halons. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has been assigned by the Government of India to for effective implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
b) Basel Convention on Trans-boundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes, 1989:[vi
The Basel Convention provides for a framework to curb the generation of hazardous waste and prohibit cross-border movement of such hazardous wastes that are incapable of being disposed off in ecological way. It was signed by India on 15 March 1990 and ratified on 24 June 1992.The Government of India formulated the Indian Hazardous Waste Management Rules 1989 was formulated in line with the principles of the Basel Convention.
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973[vii]
The CITES was signed by India on 20 July 1976. The CITES aims to prevent species of flora and fauna from being endangered due to international trade of their specimen.
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992[viii]
The objective of the UNFCCC was to control greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to protect the environment and food production and facilitate sustainable economic development. This UNFCCC was signed by India on 10 June 1992 and ratified on 1 November 1993.
c) Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992[ix]:
This convention was framed with an intention to conserve biodiversity, sustainable use and equitable sharing of the benefits of biological resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by India on 5 June 1992 and ratified on 18 February 1994.
5. Precedents that shaped the environmental law in India:
- Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India [x]:
Popularly known as Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy unfolds a deadly disaster which took place in Bhopal and which is considered as most horrific and lethal industrial disasters. A small leak of MIC gas leads to the death of thousands of people. Where UCC denied the responsibility and was shifted on UCIL (Union Carbide India Ltd). In March 1985, the Government enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act to ensure the dealing of claims arising after the incident speedily and equitably. This made Government the only representative of the victims in the legal processes in and outside the country.The settlement was made by Supreme Court of India with UCC in which UCC agreed to take the moral responsibility and paid a claim of $470 million to the government which was negligible compared to a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit which was filed by an American lawyer in a U.S court. This amount of $470 million was based on the disputed claim that only 3,000 people died and 1,02,000 suffered permanent disabilities. According to Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, by the end of October 2003, compensation was awarded to 5,54,895 people for injuries received and 15,310 survivors of those killed. As after the breathtaking tragedy, the Indian Government passed and implemented The Environment Protection Act (E.P.A) of 1986 under Article 253 of the Indian constitution. Its purpose was to implement the decisions of the UN Conference on the Human Environment of 1972 to provide protection to an improvement of environment and prevention of hazards for humans, plants, other living creatures. This act strengthens the regulations on pollution control and environment protection by hazardous industries.[xi] The main issue of raised in this case regarding absolute liability was elaborated in M.C.Mehta v UOI.
- M.C. Mehta and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.[xii] :
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated due to a gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi. The original petition was filed for the closure of various units of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers as they were hazardous for the community. There was leakage of enormous amount of oleum gas during the pendency of the petition that resulted in the death of many people. The District Magistrate, Delhi ordered Shriram Foods to stop the production of dangerous compounds at their factory in Delhi.The case was initially referred to a three-judge bench which allowed the plants to begin its operations subject to regulations laid down by the court. Considering the gravity of the situation and the impact it has brought to the environmental issues of India, the bench further referred the applications to a larger bench of five judges.
One of the major issues, in this case, was the application of “The Principle of Strict Liability” which states that “if a man who for his own purposes keeps on his land any object likely to escape and cause damage to others, should do so at his own risk”.[xiii] The Supreme Court held that no defense can be used stating that the gas escaped due to default or neglect or even that they had no knowledge of its existence. The court was of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous industry owes an obligation to the public at large and to protect the public from potential catastrophes.
Consequently, the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board was directed by the Supreme Court to take up cases of the victims at large and to file appropriate actions on their behalf in the appropriate court for indemnification.
This case led to the evolvement of the “Deep Pocket Principle” which corresponds with the legal concept, “joint and several liability” which states that damages can be obtained from co-defendants based on their capability of paying rather than their intensity of negligence[xiv]. Besides this, a new chapter being Chapter IV A has been added to the Factories Act, 1948, which deals with the provisions relating to hazardous processes. Further, among others the Public Liability Act, 1991 was passed to provide interim compensation to the victims in the event of an industrial disaster without having to prove neglect or wrongful act of any person.
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others[xv]:
Remarkably known as the ‘Dehradun Valley litigation’, this case brought in substantial measures to protect the eco-sensitive areas. The use of explosives on a massive scale for extraction of limestone in Mussoorie hill range in the Himalayas resulted in cave-ins and slumping. Further, the trees on the hillside were felled for mining activities which resulted in landslides, killing villagers and destroying their homes. As a result, the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, in 1983, addressed a letter of complaint to the Supreme Court in regards to the mining activity being carried out, which was later directed to be registered as a writ petition under Article 32. More than 100 mines that were active in the Mussoorie area were made a part of this litigation. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the Court appointed a Committee known as Bhargav Committee for conducting inspections in the limestone quarries mentioned in the writ petition.After hearing to several arguments by the parties and on recommendation by the Bhargav Committee, the Supreme Court, in March 1985, prohibited leases to the most dangerous mines falling within Mussoorie city and ceased their operations. Further, a second committee was formed, namely, the Bandyopadhyay Committee to consider plans submitted by the miners to safeguard the environment and to hear the claims of people adversely affected by the mining.
The Valley was identified as an ecologically fragile area under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court order further propagated the Doon Valley Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA) Notification[xvi] issued by the central government. Though the Act does not mention the word “Ecologically Fragile Area” or “Eco-Sensitive Zones”, it is through Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, that the MoEFCC has declared areas across the country as Ecologically Sensitive Areas. The ESA notification was issued under the above provisions, which empowers the central government to take necessary measures to protect and ameliorate the environment and obviate environmental pollution and provides for restriction of areas in which certain developmental activities can be prohibited.
- The Ganga Pollution Case:
Being one of the landmark decisions in India’s environmental regulatory history, this writ petition, called Mehta I and Mehta II in legislative digests which subsequently became the “Ganga Pollution Cases” was the most significant water pollution litigation in the country.
Mehta I: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[xvii] –
This case dealt with the tanneries of Kanpur. In this case, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to restrain the tanneries in Kanpur from releasing effluents into the Ganga river until water treatment plants were installed. In October 1987, the Court invoked Section 24 of the Water Act and Environment (Protection) Act which prohibits the use of any ‘stream’ for disposal of polluting matter as well as Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to rule in the petitioner’s favour and mandated pollution cleanup by the tanning industry concentrated along the Ganga River in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh within six months or shut down entirely. Importance was also stressed on Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which confers power on the Central Government to take effective steps for the protection and improving the quality of the environment and preventing degradation.
Mehta II: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[xviii] –
This case deals with the Municipal Corporation. This writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India contending that the municipal authorities had not taken effective steps to prevent environmental pollution in the Ganga in Kanpur wherein the Supreme Court, in January 1988 held that the Municipal Authorities failed to conduct their duties adequately and thereby issued strict guidelines and orders to be followed to control water pollution which included the making of adequate sewage system, treatment of effluents by industries before obtaining licenses, imparting education to students on environmental protection and organizing clean area week.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India[xix]:
The Supreme Court laid down a precautionary principle which is to be employed only in cases of pollution when its impact is uncertain and non-negligible.
- M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.[xx]:
This case is known as the Taj Trapezium Case. In 1984 a Writ Petition, against the brick kilns, Mathura Refinery, iron foundries, glass and other chemical industries posing a serious threat for the Taj Mahal, was filed in the Supreme Court of India. On May 12, 1996, an inspection team was sent by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), as directed by the Supreme Court, to check the magnitude of pollution generated by the kilns. The Court further stressed on the applicability of the “Precautionary Principle” and “The Polluter pays principle”, defined in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others to the present case.The “Precautionary Principle” as interpreted by the court means:
“(i) Environmental measures-by the State Government and the statutory authorities-must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be sued as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(iii) The Onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.”
Further, the “Polluter Pays” principle, as interpreted by the court means “that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.”
Subsequently, the court determined that the emissions generated by the industries have a corroding effect on the marble of the Taj Mahal. It further directed all brick kilns to install all the pollution control devices suggested by NEERI. Also, the Pollution Control Board was directed to recommend steps to be taken by kiln owners and on the failure of the kiln owners to do so, it could direct them to close down. Additionally, 292 coal-based industries were directed by the Court to switch to natural gas or in alternative to relocate beyond the protected zone by April 30, 1997
In May 1998, the MoEFC directed the constitution of the Taj Trapezium Zone Pollution Authority (TTZPA) to monitor the progress of various schemes for the protection of Taj Mahal.
- C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath and Others[xxi]
In this case, a private company was granted a lease of riparian forestland by the State Government for commercial purpose. A renowned newspaper had published an article that the company had encroached upon a huge mass of land which also included forest land, the company moved bulldozers and earthmovers to change the natural course of the river Beas flowing through this area, resulting in floods and destruction of property. The Supreme Court initiated a suo moto action based on the newspaper articleThe Supreme Court applied the ‘Doctrine of Public Trust’ to this particular case which states that “certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public”. This principle was applied to it to quash the lease-deed granted to the company. It stated that the public bodies should apply the public trust doctrine when there is no legislation to protect the natural resources. It was held by the court that the construction carried out by the company was not justified; furthermore, the Motel was ordered to pay compensation for restitution of the area being affected.
- Betty C. Alvares Vs. The State of Goa and Others.[xxii]
This case was filed by one Ms.Betty Alvarez, who was a foreign national, against some illegal construction along the beaches in Goa and on the government properties. Nevertheless, the case was opposed on the ground of nationality and law of limitation.The National Green Tribunal held that even a foreign national has the right to move the court as per Section 2(j) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010[xxiii] related to any dispute regarding the environment.
- Almitra H. Patel & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others[xxiv].
In this case, concern was raised on lack of proper treatment of solid waste which is dumped around the country thereby polluting the land, water and air.The National Green Tribunal prohibited the burning of such solid wastes on land. It further directed the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 which stipulates source segregation of biodegradables, dry and domestic hazardous waste and proper treatment and management and management of waste.
- Harinder Dhingra Vs. International Recreation & Amusement Ltd. and Ors[xxv]
The issue, in this case, revolved around illegal drawl of Ground Water. Due to the nature of the park, it discharged around 100 KLD of effluents daily. The estimated requirement on a daily basis for operating the park is around 1.8 lakh litres. In a city like Gurgaon where the supply of drinking water is erratic and groundwater depleting at a rapid pace, the use of Ground Water for commercial purposes was considered to be illegal.The National Green Tribunal directed stoppage of drawl of groundwater for commercial purposes in areas like Delhi, Ghaziabad and Noida. The tribunal referred to M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India, the order stated that no person was permitted to extract groundwater for industrial or commercial purposes unless permission was granted by CGWA. The tribunal further directed constitution of a committee which comprises of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Central Pollution Control Board, Central Ground Water Authority and District Magistrate, Gurgaon to review the existing policy on the use of water for commercial purposes in times of scarcity of drinking water. The committee set up by the tribunal suggested sewage water for amusement parks and disconnecting the canal water supply, the same was duly approved by the tribunal.
Environmental protection and conservation is reflected in the constitutional framework of the country. It has not only been raised to the status of fundamental law of the land, but it is also wedded with human rights approach. At present, the issue of environmental pollution issues is placed on the higher docket of the government including international agencies, private sector, non-governmental agencies and citizens. Nevertheless, further measures ought to be taken to spread active consciousness and awareness regarding areas of environmental pollution which are still untouched. Besides the laws on environment, the precedents set by the Courts in India have safeguarded the right to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right within the meaning of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, along with monetary or pecuniary compensation measures have also been taken to penalize any act of environmental contamination under the penal law of the land.
|Date of Enactment /Year||Event|
|17.07.1868||Ryland v Fletcher|
|09.09.1972||Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972|
|23.03.1974||The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (Water Act)|
|27.02.1975||The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 (Water Rules)|
|01.07.1975||Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 1973.|
|07.12.1977||The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (Water Cess Act)|
|24.07.1978||The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules|
|25.10.1980||Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Forest Act)|
|29.03.1981||Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act|
|12.03.1985||Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others|
|19.11.1986||Environment (Protection) Act|
|19.11.1986||Environment (Protection) Rules|
|20.12.1986||M.C. Mehta v UOI (Oleum Gas Leak Case)|
|16.09.1987||Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer|
|22.09.1987||M.C. Mehta v UOI (Kanpur Tanneries)|
|12.01.1988||M.C. Mehta v UOI (Municipal Corporation)|
|22.03.1989||Basel Convention on Trans-boundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes|
|22.01.1991||Public Liability Insurance Act|
|03.10.1991||Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India|
|09.05.1992||United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)|
|29.12.1993||Convention on Biological Diversity 1992|
|13.12.1996||M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath|
|14.02.2000||Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules|
|18.10.2000||Narmada Bacho Andolan v UOI|
|16.05.2001||Batteries (Management & Handling) Rules|
|11.4.2002||M.C.Mehta v UOI and Ors – Taj Mahal’s Case|
|05.02.2003||Biological Diversity Act (Commenced on 1.10.2003)|
|10.01.2003||Forest (Conservation) Rules|
|05.05.2010||National Green Tribunal Act|
|14.02.2014||Ms Betty C. Alvares Vs. The State of Goa and Others|
|23.03.2016||E-Waste (Management) Rules|
|28.03.2016||Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules|
|18.03.2016||Plastic Waste Management Rules|
|08.04.2016||Solid Waste Management Rules|
|29.03.2016||Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules|
|04.04.2016||Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules|
|22.12.2016||Almitra H. Patel & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others|
|25.03.2019||Harinder Dhingra Vs. International Recreation & Amusement Ltd. and Ors|
*Contributed by Adv. Manashi Mahanta, Adv. Karan Raj, Adv. Deepali Kasrekar and
[ii] Section 2, Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001
[iii] Ibid 12
[iv] Section 2(1), Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016
[vi] https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-3&chapter=27&clang=_en last visited on 31.05.2020
[viii] http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7&chapter=27&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en last visited on 31.05.2020
[xii] MANU/SC/0092/1986, 1986 SCR (1) 312, 1987 AIR 965, 1986 SCR (1) 312,
[xiii] Rylands v. Fletcher,  UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330, LR 3 HL 330.
[xiv] http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/deep-pockets-liability.html last visited on 31.05.2020
[xv] AIR 1985 SC 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169, MANU/SC/0043/1985
[xvi] http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DOON_VALLEY.pdf last visited on 31.05.2020
[xvii] MANU/SC/0396/1987,  4 SCC 463],
[xviii] MANU/SC/0586/, 1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530.
[xx]M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors; MANU/SC/1242/2002
[xxi]M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Others, MANU/SC/1007/1997, ( 1997 ) 1 SCC 388
[xxii] Miscellaneous Application No. 32/2014 (Western Zone) in Application No.63 of 2012
[xxiii] NGT Act 2010, Section 2(j): “person includes an individual, a Hindu undivided family, a company, a firm, an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, trustee of a trust, a local authority, and every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses”, http://archived.greentribunal.gov.in/FileDisplay.aspx?file_id=hp6pqcrv0hY1hc2OYG8Sk8xCFfwF7gv7AbtSt83%2fRxrgXufTbWXFcg%3d%3d last visited on 31.05.2020
[xxiv] MANU/GT/0150/2016, http://chandigarhenvis.gov.in/beta/departments/cpcc/Judgement%20Almitra.pdf last visited on 31.05.2020
[xxv] Original Application No. 458/2017, http://archived.greentribunal.gov.in/Display_file_judgement.aspx?ID=30045&type=2 last visited on 31.05.2020