INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION V. UOI, AIR 1996 SC 1446
FACTS
The petitioner, the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, brought this writ petition to the Court with a view to reducing the pollution caused by several chemical industrial plants in Bichhri village, Udaipur district, Rajasthan. The respondents including Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited and Jyoti Chemicals, which were operating heavy industry plants in the area and producing chemicals such as oleum (a concentrated form of sulphuric acid), Single Super Phosphate and H acid.
The respondents argued that the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board had given them a No Objection Certificate for manufacturing sulphuric acid and alumina sulphate, subject to certain conditions. However, this unit had changed its product without getting a clearance from the Board. Instead of producing sulphuric acid, it started manufacturing oleum and Single Super Phosphate (SSP). As a result, consent was refused to the unit on 16 February 1987. Although directions were issued for the closure of the unit, the respondents continued to operate these plants without permits, thus causing serious pollution of the environment in addition to affecting the health of people; nor did they install any equipment for the treatment of the highly toxic effluents they discharged.
ISSUES
Due to the Respondent- industries, the water in the Bichhri Village was highly contaminated, thus making it unfit for human consumption. The water in the wells and streams had turned dark and dirty. The contaminants had done enormous damage to water, cattle, plants, and to the area in general. This social action litigation was precisely for these issues.
CASED REFERRED
Rylands v. Fletcher: Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) LR 3 HL 330].
Oleum Gas Leak Case: Polluters are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to the villagers in the affected area, to the soil, and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove the sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected area (by affected area.
JUDGEMENT
Polluter Pays Principle: The “polluter pays” principle was invoked by the Supreme Court in this case, which has been recognized as a fundamental component of the government’s environmental policy towards preventing and controlling pollution, says that:
Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the polluter carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other affected party by the polluter’s activity, irrespective of the fact whether the polluter took reasonable care while carrying on his activity.
The Court stated that the polluter pays principle placed absolute liability upon the polluter for whatever harm they had caused to the environment and that this liability extended not only to the compensation for victims of the pollution but also the cost of repairing the environmental degradation caused.
Closure of Industries: The Court ordered the closure of all the plants and factories belonging to Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited and Jyoti Chemicals in Bichhri village. Calling them as “industries”, the Court held that these industries had inflicted untold misery upon the poor unsuspecting villagers, despoiling their land, their water sources, and their entire environment —all in pursuit of private profit—and that they had failed to comply with the statutory acts for prevention and control of pollution. Accordingly, the Court ordered the closure of all these plants.
Damages to the Villagers: As far as the claim for damages by the villagers in the affected area was concerned, the Court directed that the affected people or any organization acting on their behalf file suits in the appropriate civil court. Finally, the Court directed both the central government and the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board to file quarterly reports to the Court regarding the progress made in the implementation of its directions.
COMMENTARY
The polluter is responsible for compensating and repairing the damage caused by his omission. This is the quintessence of the polluter pays principle. Absolute liability of hazardous and inherently dangerous industry is the high-water mark of the development of the polluter pays principle. Despite its deterrent impact on potential polluters, the doctrine is limited in the sense that it can be applied only at the remedial stage, ie, after pollution has taken place.