Oleum gas leak case 1986 = M C Mehta Vs Union of India

Which case resulted in the creation of the absolute liability principle?

A. Ryland v Fletcher

B. Oleum gas leak case 1986  è

C. Bhopal gas leak case

D. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

==========

The absolute liability principle:

The rule of absolute liability was evolved in the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India. This was a very important landmark judgment that brought in a new rule in the history of the Indian Law. The rule held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident.

What is Absolute Liability?

If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials are absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties. The industry cannot plead that all safety measures were taken care of by them and that there was negligence on their part. They will not be allowed any exceptions neither can they take up any defence like that of Act of God' or Act of Stranger'

In M.C. Mehta v Union of India, In the city of Delhi, there was severe leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and the 6th of December, 1985. This took place in one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries belonging to the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. due to this, an advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and many others were affected by the same. The action was brought through a writ petition by way of public interest litigation (PIL).

===========

Recently in which case, the rule of absolute liability was applied?

A. Visakhapatnam gas leak case: LG Polymers

B. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India ===>

C. Naresh Dutt Tyagi v State of UP

D. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

========

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Vs Union of India

 In which of the following did the court accept the precautionary principle along with the polluter pays principle as part of the legal system?

a. Vellore Citizens welfare forum vs Union of India

b. M.C.Mehta Vs Kamal Nath

c. Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs Union of India

d. Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Vs Union of India è

===========

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Vs Union of India

In this case, the Principle of “Polluter Pays” was expressly implemented, as the Court ruled that, under Section 3 and Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Court has the authority to undertake steps to put such a rule into effect. It was introduced under Principle 16 of the Rio Summit of 1992 which specified that the polluter must principally pay for the pollution charges.

There is also a debate about whether only a civil action against the polluter is satisfactory or whether there is a necessity to make the polluters criminally liable as well. The provisions of Sections 268 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code were already being utilized to declare the accused criminally responsible for public nuisance in relation to environmental disturbance, which was way before the adoption of the Stockholm Declaration in 1972. Following the Stockholm Declaration, the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1974, and the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1981 contain the provisions for the initiation of criminal proceedings against such polluters.

Basically, the court implemented the concept of polluters pay, which implies, as per the court, that if an activity carried out, is of a harmful nature, then the individuals conducting these very activities will be required to compensate to make up for the damage caused to any other person irrespective of whether appropriate precautionary measures were taken or not while carrying out such an activity.

=============

A.P. Pollution Control Board v M.V. Nayudu

 “In order to ensure that there is neither damage to the environment nor to the ecology and at the same time ensuring sustainable development it can refer scientific and technical aspects for investigating and opinion to statutory expert bodies having a combination of both judicial technical expertise in such matter”, this was held in –

a. A.P. Pollution Control Board v M.V. Nayudu è

b. Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum V Union of India

c. M.C. Mehta V Kamal Nath

d. Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India

================

Judgement

The Court held that the authorities could not grant a NOC to set up industries within 10 K.M.

The Court directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh to identify other industries within 10 Km of the reservoirs and take appropriate action to prevent pollution to the drinking water in these two reservoirs.

The Court held that the Board shall not permit any polluting industry within 10 Km area and asked them to submit a report within four months with respect to the industries existing within 10 Km of reservoirs that potentially caused pollution.

The Court also observed that the principle of promissory estoppels did not apply to the present case.

The Court recommended the Law Commission of India to consider a review of the environmental laws existing in the country.

The Court also recommended the need for establishing environmental courts consisting of experts in environmental law and members of the Judiciary.

Analysis and Conclusion

The right to sustainable development is declared as an inalienable human right in the Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986 by the UN General Assembly.

The 1992 Rio Conference declared, “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.”  

Thus, access to drinking water is an essential element for life, and it is the duty of the state under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.

In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India, Kirpal J observed, “Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The right to a healthy environment, along with the right to sustainable development, must be balanced.

As observed by the Supreme Court in this case, there is a need to set up environmental courts in order to ensure speedy disposal of environment litigations.

It is also necessary to take measures that will help reduce environmental degradation to create specific criteria for such hazardous industries.

==============

Church of God (Gospel) in India-Vs.-K.K.R. Majestic

“No religious practices should disturb peace of society” was held in the case of _____.

(a) Vellore Citizen Forum Case

(b) Ganga Pollution Case

(c) Church of God (Gospel) in India-Vs.-K.K.R. Majestic è

(d) Taj Trapezium Case.

Loudspeaker case 1999

This case is related to the noise pollution.

The appellant, a minority institution was in the practice of using musical instruments such as drum set, triple ganga, guitar etc. The respondent welfare Association filed a Criminal O.P before the High Court of Madras for a direction to the authorities [Superintendent of Police] to take action on the basis of the letter issued by the Joint Chief Environment Engineer of the TMPCB.

In High Court it was contended by the Church that the petition was filed with an oblique motive in order to prevent a religious minority institution from pursuing its religious activities and the Court cannot issue any directions to prevent the church from practicing its religious beliefs. The High Court balanced the act by giving directions to the religious minority institution to bring down the noise level by keeping the speakers at a lower level.

But the Court held that 'undisputedly no religion prescribed that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of other nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums.

In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old, infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted..'.

The Court while adjudicating the appeal observed that in the present case, the contention with regard to the right under Art. 25 or Art. 26 of the Constitution which are subject to 'public order, morality and health' are not required to be dealt with in detail mainly because.. no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums. In any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others including that of being not disturbed in their activities.

===========

SMOG

 Which of the following pollutants are responsible for the cause of SMOG?

A. Incinerators

B. emission from vehicles

C. Both A & B è

D. Ozone gas

===========

Smog is air pollution that reduces visibility.

The term "smog" was first used in the early 1900s to describe a mix of smoke and fog.

The smoke usually came from burning coal.

Smog was common in industrial areas, and remains a familiar sight in cities today.

Today, most of the smog we see is photochemical smog.

======

Radiation pollution

Which among the following can cause radiation pollution?

A. Uranium è

B. Ozone

C. Sulphur

D. Methane

======

World Charter on Nature

 The World Charter on Nature came in –

a. 1982 è

b. 1983

c. 1990

d. 1992

The World Charter for Nature was adopted by United Nations member nation-states on October 28, 1982. It proclaims five "principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged." Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired.

=======