UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,
PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH.
SESSION- 2019-2020
PROJECT REPORT OF ENVIRONMENT LAW.
TOPIC- RELEVANCE AND APPLICATION OF ‘POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE”
SUBMITTED TO: DR. SABINA MA’AM SUMITTED BY: POOJA
ROLL NO.: 181/16
CLASS: BCOM.LLB
SECTION: D
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I will be failing in my duty if I do not acknowledge the debt of gratitude and heartfelt thanks that I owe to my esteemed
and drastic Guru and Guide, Dr. Sabina ma’am, Professor of Law, University institute of Legal studies, Chandigarh. She
is person with multiple talent and creativity and she is always a light for the students for reaching their respective goals.
Am proud and thankful to have an opportunity to complete my project work under her valuable guidance, suggestions,
encouragement meticulous examination, remarkable comments and wholehearted cooperation, which has been decisive in
the timely completion of this project work.
Last but not least, I take the opportunity to express my gratitude to my family members. To my father, Mr. Mahesh
chander, mother Mrs. Mohini, elder brothers Mr. Vishal Disodia for all kind of cooperation and wholehearted
encouragement at every stage of my study.
Pooja.
Page | 1
INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION
2. WHAT IS POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE?
3. APPPLICATION OF POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE.
4. RELEVANCE
5. CONCLUSION
6. REFRENCES
Page | 2
TABLE OF CASES.
1. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India.( AIR 1996 2 JT (SC), 2721.)
2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India. (AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2721)
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.( AIR 1986 SC 1086)
4. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors.( 2000 AIR 1SCC388)
5. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and others. (2004)6SCC402)
6. Tirupur Dyeing ‘case.( (2009)9SCC737)
Page | 3
INTRODUCTION
Polluter pays Principle is also known as the principle of extended producer responsibility. With the advent of the modern
industrial revolution, the scheme of production in factories added the idea of externalizing the waste. It caused pressure on
the surrounding environment and the need of polluter pays arose. Polluter pays Principle has become a popular
catchphrase in recent times. ‘If you make a mess, it’s your duty to clean it up’.- that is the main basis of this slogan. It
should be mentioned that in environment law, the ‘polluter pays principle’ does not refer to ‘fault’. Instead it is a curative
approach which is concerned with repairing ecological damage.
The Polluter Pays Principle imposes liability on a person who pollutes the environment to compensate for the damage
caused and return the environment to its original state regardless of the intent.
WHAT IS “POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE”?
The ‘polluter pays’ principle is the commonly accepted practice that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of
managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. For instance, a factory that produces a potentially
poisonous substance as a by-product of its activities is usually held responsible for its safe disposal. The polluter pays
principle is part of a set of broader principles to guide sustainable development worldwide (formally known as the 1992
Rio Declaration).
This principle underpins most of the regulation of pollution affecting land, water and air. Pollution is defined in UK law
as contamination of the land, water or air by harmful or potentially harmful substances. The ‘polluter pays’ principle is an
environmental policy principle which requires that the costs of pollution be borne by those who cause it.
The polluter pays principle is essentially based on a common-sense approach for the mitigation of environmental
degradation. It simply means that s/he who damages the environment should bear the cost of rectifying that damage. In a
broader sense, producers of goods and other items should be responsible for any pollution which the process of production
causes and therefore must also pay for prevention or rectification of the damage caused to the environment by such
pollution. Underlying the meaning of the polluter pays principle is the belief that when public authorities take measures to
prevent potential and actual environmental damage, the expenses incurred should be borne by the person responsible for
the pollution.
In the event of environmental pollution, the principle can be applied to require the producer and/or resource user to meet
the costs of implementing an environmental standard. Where it is required, the resource user should also meet the
necessary expenses for implementation of technical regulations. It is also suggested that introduction of liability regimes
Page | 4
be introduced to make resource users liable for causing environmental harm and thus pay for the pollution caused by their
authorities.
APPLICATION OF THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE.
The ‘polluter pays principle’ was the first time applied and defined in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India1, that the court explicitly applied this principle. It was declared by the court that redemption of
the damaged environment is a part of the process of sustainable development and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost
of the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
Thus, the ‘polluter pays principle’ means the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to
compensate the victims of pollution but also to the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the
damaged environment is part of the process of sustainable development.
In this case, five chemical industries were producing H-acid (1-napthol-8-amino, 6- disciphonic acid). An azo dye and
untreated toxic sludge were discharged into the open compound which, in due course of time, flowed through a canal
across the entire area and the rainwater washed the sludge deep into the bowels of the earth. It caused pollution of river
water and underground water up to 70 feet below the ground within a radius of seven miles of the village Bicchari. It
further left the fields nearby infertile, as a result of which residents had to migrate out of the village.
The Court while making a landmark judgment on this PIL, also kept in mind that NY principle adopted by it must be
simple, practical and suited to the conditions prevailing in the country. Looking at the widespread ramification of the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, persons or the institutions would be held ‘liable absolutely’, though they
have taken all reasonable care while carrying out such activity.
The liability to compensate is twofold; one, to compensate the victims of pollution for inconvenience and health loss; and
the other, to restore the environmental degradation viz., of the soil, underground water and the vegetation cover of that
area. Such remediation is part of the process of ‘sustainable development’. It is also to be noted that all this does not
absolve a person from criminal liability. Stainable development. It is also to be noted that all this does not absolve a
person from criminal liability.
It was also ordered by the court that the Central Government must determine the amount required for carrying out
remedial measures and the status report submitted by the National Environmental & Engineering Research Institute
1
AIR 1996 2 JT (SC), 2721.
Page | 5
(NEERI) in the year 1994 be made a basis to compute it. NEERI in its report had stated that rupees 4, 00, 00,000/- would
be needed to reserve the power of soil and water contamination.
The sincerity of the Supreme Court came to the fore when it was pronounced that the Ministry of Environment and Forest
must recover the money from the units and the recovered money be used to repair the damage caused to the land and
water in the area. As a result of which plant and factories have been sold by the State Government.
The Supreme court in yet another case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India2 reiterated and declared in
unequivocal terms that ‘the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental
jurisprudence of this country. These principles have been accepted as a part of the law of the land as article 21 of the
Constitution of India guaranteed the protection of life and personal liberty. There is also a constitutional mandate to
protect and improve the environment under articles 48-A and 51-A (g).
The Court also observed that this principle has also been accepted as part of the customary International Law, therefore, it
automatically becomes a part of the basic jurisprudence of the land. In the same case, the court also ordered for the
creation of ‘Environment Protection Fund’. This fund could be utilized for compensating the affected persons identified
by the ‘authority’ and also for ‘restoring the damaged environment’.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India3, The Supreme Court reiterated the polluter pays principle and re-emphasized the need
to apply it. It was a case of ‘yellowing and decaying of the Taj Mahal’. The court ordered the industries to shift away from
the Taj Trapezium or to switch over to gas as fuel. The industries which did not switch over to gas were ordered to be
closed down unconditionally by December 31, 1997.
Even the workers of the industries were also recognized as the victims of the polluting industries and for the closure of
industry, the workers are not to be thrown out of the industry without any economic/job security. They were also held to
be entitled to certain rights and benefits from the erring industries.
Therefore, declaration of gratuity, compensation, additional compensation or shifting allowance by the Supreme Court, in
this case, has given a new dimension to environmental jurisprudence in India
There are certain statutes too, which directly or indirectly adhered to the polluter pays principle.
The Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991 makes it a mandatory duty of all the industries, which have a capital value of
Rs. 2, 00,000 to get insured under the Act. The premium of such insurance shall be collected in the ‘Environment Relief
Fund’ which shall be available with the collector of the district. The collector in case of industrial accident/ disaster shall
2
AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2721
3
AIR 1986 SC 1086.
Page | 6
pay, by way of relief, immediately to the victims of the accident/disaster. This relief will not be a bar to file a case for
compensation separation.
Similarly, The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, also provides that tribunal can award compensation on the
ground of any damage to the environment and such an amount shall be remitted to the authority specified under section 7-
A (3) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 for being credited to the Environmental Relief Fund. The Act provides
that if the owner of the unit/ industry fails to pay or deposit such an amount of award within the specified period, it shall
be recoverable from the owner as arrears of land.
The abovementioned pronouncements clear out the position of the Supreme court, that even without being any statutory
binding of the principle, the action of the court has been very affection and innovative. The court has always come to the
rescue of those who have suffered due to pollution. Such a firm stand of the court has taken by surprise all those who used
to manipulate the apathetic environmental agencies.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors4, the decision of this case is related to an earlier decision by the Supreme Court in
the same matter. The court had learned that the private company "Span Motels Pvt. Ltd." had built a motel on the bank of
the River Beas on land leased by the Indian Government in 1981.
Span Motels had also encroached upon an additional area of land adjoining this leasehold area, and this area was later
leased out to Span Motels. The motel had used earthmovers and bulldozers to turn the course of the River Beas, create a
new channel and divert the river’s flow. The course of the river was diverted to save the motel from future floods.
The case was finally decided by this court by its judgment dated December 13, 1996. The case had been placed before the
court again only for determination of the quantum of pollution fine. The main case had been disposed of with the
directions, among others, that the public trust doctrine was a part of the law of the land, the prior lease-deed in favor of the
Motel were quashed, the Motel had to pay compensation for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area,
and the Motel had to show cause why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed on the Motel.
The Court analyzed the “polluter pays principle” including its history, international development and implementation in
the national legal system. It emphasized that the polluter pays principle was widely accepted as a means of paying for the
cost of pollution and control. The wrongdoer, the polluter, was under an obligation to make good the damage caused to
the environment.
However, it was difficult for the court to hold that the pollution fine could be imposed upon M/s Span Motel. In addition
to the damages which had to be paid by M/s Span Motel, as directed in the main Judgment, it could not be punished with
fine unless a certain procedure prescribed under the national law was followed and M/s Span Motel was tried for any of
4
2000 AIR 1SCC388
Page | 7
the offences contemplated by the Act and was found guilty. The notice issued to M/s Span Motel why pollution fine be
not imposed upon them was, therefore, withdrawn.
However, the court emphasized that the matter did not end there. Pollution was a civil wrong. By its very nature, it was a
tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who was guilty of causing pollution, had to pay
damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. He had also to pay damages to those who have
suffered loss on account of the act of the offender. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution
could also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any
manner. However, notice for exemplary damages had not yet been issued to M/s Span Motel. While withdrawing the
notice for payment of pollution fine, the court directed a fresh notice be issued to M/s Span Motel to show cause why in
addition to damages, exemplary damages are not awarded for having committed the acts set out in the main judgment.
The decision in Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and others5, laid down a proposition that in absence of actual
degradation of environment by the offending activities, the payment for repair on application of the PPP cannot be
ordered. In this case a Public Interest litigation was filed before High Court alleging large scale pollution caused by
industries located in Gujarat Industrial Development industrial corporation estate at Nandesari.
In Tirupur Dyeing6, case, public interest litigation was filed against the discharge of effluents into river. A large number
of farmers have suffered because of the pollution caused by them. They could not cultivate any crop in the said land. The
Pollution Control Board is directed to ensure that no pollution is caused, giving strict adherence, to the statutory
provisions. “polluter-pays” are the integral part and parcel of national environmental law. The appellant is bound to
compensate the persons who have suffered the loss because of the activity of its members, as water of the river is neither
worth for irrigation purpose nor potable. It was also reiterated that principles of “polluters-pay” and “precautionary
principle” have to be read with the doctrine of “sustainable development”.
RELEVANCY OF POLLUTER PAYS.
5
(2004)6SCC402
6
(2009)9SCC737
Page | 8
Nowadays predominant factor which restrains the government is not directing the industries to strictly follow the
environmental norms is the economic factor. The main problem lies in the fact that where to allocate the costs of the
pollution. If the industries are made liable for the damages, it adversely affects the trade and consequently, the nation’s
growth, but if the state takes up the responsibility of remedying the situation, the costs are indirectly served on the
ordinary public of the nation. Hence, this principle serves the very important purpose of allocating the costs for
environmental degradation subject to the complex economic position.
Page | 9
CONCLUSION
Even with all its success in Indian scenario, the polluter pays principle is not a cure for all of the world’s environmental
problems. It has a potential only for problems that stem from identifiable polluters who have sufficient economic
resources to pay their way and even under the broadest definitions of pollution, the PPP cannot assist with serious
environmental issues such as declining biological diversity or destruction of ecologically critical habitats. Other problems,
though pollution related, are the aggregated consequence of the disparate actions of millions of individuals who are just
trying to maintain a subsistence livelihood in overcrowded cities or decertified rural areas. The PPP would be
inappropriate in such situations; these impoverished polluters are in no position to pay for their contribution to the world’s
environmental burden.
Most developing countries are yet to completely subscribe to the polluter pays principle as a major environmental policy
guideline due to difficulty in implementing the same and due to its vague nature. The poor households, informal sector
firms, and subsistence farmers cannot bear any additional charges for waste disposal while the small and medium-size
firms from the formal sector, which mainly serve the home market, find it difficult to pass on higher costs to the domestic
end-users of their products. Also, the exporters in developing countries usually cannot shift the burden of cost
internalization to foreign customers due to elastic demand. Lastly, many environmental problems in developing countries
are caused by an overexploitation of common pool resources.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBLIOGRAPHY.
Page | 10
1. Jaswal, P.S: Environment Law, Allahabad Agency.
2. www.ukessays.com.
3. www.legalbites.in
4. www.theguardian.com
5. www.indiankanoon.com
6. www.legalserviceindia.com
Page | 11
