|
|||||||
|
Polluter Pays Principle and its Application in
India |
|||||||
| Paper Id :
18523 Submission Date :
2024-01-08 Acceptance Date :
2024-01-17 Publication Date :
2024-01-20
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10653975 For verification of this paper, please visit on
http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8
|
|||||||
| |||||||
| Abstract |
Every living entity survives in a defined environment and
industrialization is increasing very rapidly in the 21st century. Industries
produce very harmful pollutants which are deteriorating our environment and
having a direct impact on the existence of human and other living entity. Some
of the principles applied to protect the environment are precautionary
principle; polluter pays principle and absolute liability principle etc. This
article explains what is the polluter pays principle? and its application in
India and the role of the Indian judiciary in establishing the polluter pays
principle in the field of environmental law. |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keywords | Environment, Industrialization, Pollutants, Deteriorating, Polluter Pays Principle. | ||||||
| Introduction | The industrial revolution in the twenty-first century has
brought significant improvement in people's lives. However, the Industrial
Revolution has sadly led to industrial pollution. Technology has also advanced
at an incremental rate, and manufactured goods have largely replaced obsolete
goods. By-products are an essential component of manufacturing and it is the
need of the hour that industrialists take measures to resolve the threats and
hazards that these industries pose to our environment. Two principles have been
applied to deal with this problem. (1)The “polluter pays principle” and (2) the
“precautionary principle” are two important constitutional duties to prevent
environmental degradation. |
||||||
| Objective of study | This article explains what is the polluter pays principle?
and its application in India and the role of the Indian judiciary in
establishing the polluter pays principle in the field of environmental law. |
||||||
| Review of Literature | The polluter
pays principle (PPP) was first introduced by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1972 where the polluter was held
responsible for pollution.[1] In simple words PPP imposes
liability on the person who pollutes the environment and compensates for the
harm caused to human health or the environment in its original state. The
polluter pays principle is one of the basic principles of environmental policy
to guide sustainable development around the world. The main idea of the theory
is that each polluter must achieve an economically efficient level of
production and pollution and the polluter must look not only at the benefits of
the polluting activity, but also at the harm it causes to others or the
environment. In adopting the 'polluter pays' principle, the strategy was
to make those who generate waste responsible for its recycling and disposal. Although PPPs
have helped reduce environmental damage to some extent, most developing
countries have yet to sign on to it as a core environmental policy guideline. As
beautiful as the idea behind the polluter pays principle may be, however, it
has several theoretical and practical flaws to overcome (Ruhl and Craig, 2011).
First, there remains ambiguity regarding clear identification of the actual
polluter or who should bear the costs? Secondly, polluters may be poor
households, informal sector companies, small and medium-sized companies in the
formal sector and it is difficult to impose liability on such polluters. All
these issues make it difficult to implement PPP as a guideline for
environmental policy in developing countries. The
"polluter pays" principle effectively holds polluters responsible for
the environmental pollution they cause. According to this theory, the polluter
should be held responsible for every environmental damage.[2] According to the "polluter pays
principle", the polluter must pay for the rehabilitation of any
environmental damage in addition to compensating the victims of pollution. According to
the OECD Recommendation (1) (2) of 1972 and 1974,[3]Public authorities decide what steps the
polluter should take to manage the pollution so that the environment remains in
a sustainable condition after the operation of such industry. As a result, both
the cost of environmental restoration and the cost of health risks to the
general public have to be borne by the polluter. The polluter
pays principle was most appropriately introduced in the case of Indian Council
of Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India in 1996.[4] In this case, Justice Dalveer
Bhandari observed that the industrial process is integral to correcting the
ecological imbalance it creates. Therefore, the polluting industry must bear
the financial burden of taking preventive and control measures for pollution.[5] It is not possible to put the
financial responsibility of avoiding or repairing this on the government.
Because if the government has to compensate for the loss, ultimately the
citizens will be demanded to compensate for the loss for which they are not
guilty. After the court dismissed the writ petition, review petition and
curative petition, several interim and interim applications were filed in the case.
The judge in this case, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, observed that it is easy for
people with power and authority to disobey or not follow judicial
pronouncements. As per the
findings of the judges, in the cases of Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of
India and Ors[6] and Research Foundation for Science
Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Ors[7]. Respectively, environmental laws in
India are fundamentally based on ethical principles such as the precautionary
principle and the polluter pays principle. The "polluter pays
principle" was previously considered a component of the accepted norms of
international environmental law. Therefore, the judges believe that the
concepts should be incorporated into Indian environmental rules. In the case
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Naidu (Retd) and others.[8] The court has suggested that the
parameters of how theory was put into practice were expanded. When cases are
filed with tribunals or other environmental organizations, judges have made it
possible for those institutions to adopt these principles. Legal Provision The fundamental
rights of every Indian citizen have been emphasized through various articles of
the Indian Constitution. The right to life and personal liberty is a
fundamental freedom listed in Article 21.[9] Simply put, depriving the residents
of an area of their basic rights would involve contaminating the area around
them. It is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in the community
to protect the environment as pollution is an inevitable byproduct of
industrialization. Therefore, it is believed that Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution naturally follows the right to community participation in
environmental protection. According to
Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act,[10] while passing any order, award or
decision for balanced development without harming Mother Earth, the Tribunal
may apply the concepts of sustainable development; polluter pays principle and
precautionary principle. Roll of
Judiciary- Indian Council
For Enviro-Legal Action V. Union of India and ORS. A group of
environmentalists spread awareness about the plight of people living in
Bichhari, a Rajasthani village located in Udaipur district. In Bichari village,
there was an industrial complex that mainly manufactured chemicals. The life of
the villagers had become uncomfortable due to the release of concentrated
sulfuric acid and aluminum sulphate from a company named Hindustan Agro
Chemical Limited. Due to their refractory character, handling factory effluents
was extremely challenging. Some pollutants
are leaching into the soil and polluting the aquifers and groundwater-below.
The existing crop was also ruined due to dirty water. Wastewater seeped into
the groundwater, making nearby water unfit for consumption and irrigation. As a
result, it was decided that anyone who engages in an activity that involves the
use of a chemical that is inherently dangerous is responsible for any harm it
causes to people or the environment. The polluter pays principle is put into
practice by holding the polluter financially responsible for all costs
associated with restoring the environment to its pre-pollution state. Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India and ORs In the case
Vellore Residents Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others, residents of
Tamil Nadu protested that untreated effluents from tanneries and other
industries were dumped into waterways. Each day, the tanneries produced about
200 tons of leather; the production process requires 40 liters of water for
every kilogram, and each liter of water contains 176 different types of
dangerous acids. Potable water was contaminated as a result of the poisonous
character of the waste materials. Rainfall and flooding in the surrounding city
resulted in river water flowing into adjacent areas. The surrounding
fields were mainly used for agriculture and farming. As a result the
agricultural sector became poisonous due to the effluents. The water became
unfit for drinking or any daily use. As a result, in this case, the
industrialists had to compensate for the losses incurred by them. M.C. Mehta V.
Union of India and Others The “polluter
pays principle” was reiterated by the Supreme court in this milestone case of
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, [11]in which the Court emphasized on the
absolute necessity of applying the principle. In this case,
there was cause for concern about the decline and fading of the Taj Mahal. The
Taj Mahal is a monument of vital national importance; hence its maintenance is
a matter of public importance. The National Institute of Environmental
Engineering reports and the Varadarajan Committee reports of 1990 and 1995[12] respectively stated that most of
the damage to the Taj Mahal was caused by the foundries, chemical industries
and Mathura refineries, which were located in a designated area known as the
Taj Trapezium Zone. The court
ordered that the industry either switch from gasoline to petrol or find a new
place to operate. Industries disobeying the instructions were ordered to close
without any justification. The “polluter pays principle” took on a new meaning
thanks to Justice Kuldeep Singh in this landmark case. According to them, their
employees will suffer losses as a result of closure or relocation of
industries. The workers should have received compensation in the form of
housing, continued employment until the industry revived, etc. Since then, the
courts have repeatedly emphasized that the rights and obligations of workers
cannot be violated. This incident marked a turning point in the administration
of environmental law. MC Mehta Vs.
Union of India and ORS. This case is
also called the Oleum Case due to the nature of the waste generated from the
industry.[13] The Court ruled that an enterprise
engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, which may endanger the
health and safety of people working in the factory and people living in the
surrounding areas, has a duty to the community which Is complete and
non-delegated. Ensure that no one is harmed as a result of the dangerous or
inherently dangerous nature of the activity they undertake.
Notwithstanding
any reasonable precautions taken by it, the enterprise is unquestionably bound
to compensate for the loss. The amount of compensation payable for injury caused
by accident in the conduct of a hazardous or environmentally hazardous activity
carried on by the former industry. |
||||||
| Conclusion |
It is important
to note that one should not conclude that the polluter pays principle is a
license for businesses to pollute. Industries cannot be started with dangerous
goals knowing that you can pay for it later with money. Instead, it is a
strategy to prevent environmental degradation. It is very important to save the
environment and avoid destroying nature in the name of progress. There should
be economic progress but not at the cost of the environment and vice versa. It
is necessary to introduce legislation incorporating such principles. We should
work towards sustainable development without endangering our environment.
The National
Green Tribunal should work prominently to strike terror into the hearts of
industries and anyone found guilty of environmental pollution should face swift
punishment. It is important to take the necessary action to guarantee that
those who have been wronged receive adequate compensation. Last but not least,
we should look at the polluter pay principle as a policy that will help us
protect our environment, and not as a principle that is only concerned with
compensation. |
||||||
| References | Books |
||||||
| Endnote | [1] https://one.oecd.org/document/OCDE/GD(92)81/En/pdf Polluter-Pays Principle - an overview, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/polluter-pays-principle [2] What is the polluter pays principle? https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-the-polluter-pays-principle/ 18 July, 2022 [3] Council Recommendation on the Implementation of the Polluter-Pays Principle, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/11 [4] CASE NO. IAs Nos. 36 and 44 in WP (C) No. 967 of 1989, decided on July 18, 2011 [5] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and Others (Petitioners) vs. Union of India and Others (Respondents), https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/in/national-case-law/indian-council-enviro-legal-action- and-others-petitioners-v-union [6] AIR 1996 S C 2715 [7] AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 852 [8] AIR 1999 S C 812 [9] Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India https://pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=105411 [10] Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (No 19 of 2010) https://greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/act_rules/National_Green_Tribunal_Act,_2010.pdf [11] 2003 (8) SCC 696 [12]http://www.ttzagra.com/docs/StudyReport/VARADHARAJAN%20COMMITTEE.pdf [13] 1987 AIR 965 |
||||||
