Environment protection act, 1986

Object:

- To fulfil obligation of Art 48-A

- As provided in Stockholm declaration – Principle 17 – to protect flora, fauna, non-renewable
resources and wildlife.

MC Mehta v Kamal Nath:

Polluter pays principle, anthropocentric approach

First statute in history to define ‘environment’

S. 2(a), env includes: a. water, air and land, b. the interrelationship among and between a., human
beings, living creatures, plants, microorganisms and property.

- major urban ills such as noise, traffic, transportation system, slums and congestion are absent from
the act.

S. 2(b), env pollutants; solid/liquid/gaseous substance – in such concentration – injurious to env

MC Mehta v UOI (Taj Trapezium Case) – emission of SO2 (coal and diesel) – 10 fold of standard fixed
by the CPCB – ‘acid rain’ – corrosion of marble to Taj Mahal.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v UOI, untreated effluent from tanneries – changed physico-chemical
properties of soil – contaminated underground water – drinking water of 350 wells polluted.

S. 6(2)(b) – refers to noise pollution

Air Act under S. 2(a) – includes noise as pollutant (beyond 65 dB, more than 100 dB intolerable and
affects health – Bijayananda Patra v District Magistrate

MC Mehta v UOI (1997) 7 SCC 522

- Hot mix plant- resurface to airport runway – hazardous industry – air pollution

Electricity as a hazardous substance – M.P. SEB v Collector

S. 2(f) – person who has control of affairs or factory/ who is in possession of the substance

CHAP II – General powers of the Central Govt

S. 3 – powers, S. 3(1) – take all measure as it deems necessary to protect and improve quality

- Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd v UOI – central govr should appoint theory at state and central level
for national forest policy, 1988, discussion, participation and circulation.

- if EIA of project done by MoEF in ’94 then no need for 2006 notification.

‘quality of env’ emphasis in V Lakshmipathy v State of Karnataka

 - Writ petition under 226 against location and operation of industry near residential areas,
serious threat to libv

In subhash Kumar v state of bihar, court to prevent Bokaro collieries from the polluting the river by
disallowing discharge of slurry in i.

In Hindustan zinc ltd v rajasthan ekectricity regulatory commission

- Upheld validity of obligation on captive electricity generating companies to purchase min

amount of electricity under RERC and electricity act. Penalty in case of non-compliance.
- Kyoto protocol
- Reasonable Restriction under 19(6)
- National action plan on climate change
- Sub-serve mandate under Art 21, 48-A and 51-A(g)

In MC Mehta v UOI (2016) 4 SCC 269

- Orders and intro of BS-VI grade auto-fuel all over India used in NCT and 30 other cities
- Production of vehicles by company to subscribe w these standards by 1 April 2020

Environmental Impact Assessment

Pros and Cons of proposed activity including the natural, social and economic aspects. Whether the
project can start or not.

- Int association for impact assessment (IAIA) process of identifying, predcting, evaluating and
mitigating the biophysical, social and other effects of development proposals
- To ensure sus dev
- National organisation of reform of marijuana law v US
- Even very early (napoleon in 1910 - into categories)
- Our common future inspired the same in many European countries

Mandatory method

Discretionary method – not compulsory and depends on the admin/nodal agency

Cost-benefit analysis – compares all expected present and future benefits of a project with costs

- This was adopted by the courts in G. Sundarrajan v UOI and Goa Foundation v Konkan
Railway Corpn.,

Int convention on EIA in a transboundary context

- Espoo convention
- To carry out an EIA on early stages of planning of certain activities – Ukraine

Indian Model

- Adopted preventive mode – influenced by Bhopal Gas catastrophe

- Regulation applicable to amt of investment above 50 cr in beg raised to 100 cr later.
- Amendment to include public hearing in EIA
- One month notice to residents which would be affected by that project for public hearing
Env clearance regulation, 2006

- Projects which require clearance from central govt – 30

- Under schedule A – mining, airport, chemical, pesticide etc
- Schedule B – thermal, coal, cement plants etc
1. Screening
2. Scope – process of committee, TOR for prep of EIA
3. Public consultation – public hearing at site or at close proximity and response in writing
4. Appraisal – scrutiny by the committee
- G Sundarrajan v UOI ‘economic scientific benefits’ balance w/ ‘minor radiological
detriments’ on national nuclear policy
- Validity of env clearance
- Common cause v UOI (concept of ex post facto in mining leases is alien to env jurisprudence,
illegal mining ordered for recovery and 237 cr)

Review of EIA by judiciary

Need to review the notification

In Noida memorial complex near Okhla bird sanctuary, re – EIA notification calls for a close second
look, project under 8(a) and 8(b) to be defined w/ clarity

In Narmada Bachao Andolan v UOI

- Env clearance given by centr govt in 1987, prior to ’84. Dispute – height of dam – settled by
award in ’78 – construction taken up in ’87.
- Writ filed to challenge the construction – SC – 100 cr of public money spent, groups in PIL
cant be entertained.

In MC Mehta v UOI (2004) 12 SCC 118 – mining activity in aravali hills

- Even though notification of ’94 not applicable to mining mineral but coz of degradation, EIA
is must. Also applicable for renewal.
- SC appointed a monitoring committee
- Complete ban

Rule 3 of EPA rules – procedure for emission or discharge of env pollutants from industries in
Schedules I – IV.

In Deepak Kumar v State of Haryana (illegal mining in Haryana, Rajasthan and UP), no EIA required if
mining is less than 5 hectares, but if it is near a stream and will have an impact then it requires EIA.

SC In F.B. Taraporewala v Bayer India Ltd directed centr govt to constitute authority to examine
relocation of industrial and residential areas under S. 3(3) of EPA and Maharashtra town planning
act. Chemicals would cause harm to the residents in case of any accident.

5 of EPA rules list of factors for restriction of industries.

Laying down procedures for prevention of accidents which may cause env pollution and remedial
measure for such accidents.
For handling of hazardous substances

- Research foundation for science v UOI, (breaking of ship at yard containing asbestos – ‘blue
lady ship’) – SC directed govt to form a code for recomm. of expert committee for ship
breaking industry

Indian council for enviro-legal action v uoi; constituted Maharashtra coastal zone mngmt authority.
To prevent coastal env, inquiry into cases of violation. The working of the same examined in Sneha
mandal coop housing society v UOI.

- Kuldip singh – pity that no authority has been created under S. 3(3).

Vellore – green bench for env pollution cases as in WB and MP. – precautionary and polluter pays
principles. Untreated toxic effluents from tanneries – 584 industries from north arcot were plluting
river palar – land poll – 170 chemical types in process – spoiled soil and underground water – sc
issued directions – installation of poll control devices.

Same in AP PCB v MV Nayadu

In S. Jagannath v UOI (shrimp farms on sea coast and construction of ponds is hazardous, ‘polluter
pays principle’ they had to pay individuals and reverse ecology of that area) – constitute authority
under 3(3) for protection of ecological fragile coastal area, waterfront and others

Nation env tribunal and national env appellate authority were constituted under S. 3(3) of EPA

Credibility of CEC discussed in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v State of Karnataka

- S 6 is a corollary and complementray to S 3

Appointment of officers and their powers and functions

- S. 4, S.5 – to issue directions to any such officer

- Should be in writing, bound to comply with such directions, power; to STOP OF SUPPLY AND
CLOURE, PROHIB/REGULATION.
- 15 days to object, centr govt to act w/in 45 days.

In Mahabir soap and gudakhu factory v UOI: (manu tobacco toothpaste) govt issued direction to
petitioner to close down, and told authorities to disconnect water and electricity. But no hearing
given, but it gave 15 days after issuing notice, man partners filed objection w/in 15 days, inquire in
factory u/s 21, 25 and 26 of Water Act. After, closure was directed till measure were taken.

Court said no rule provides for opportunity to be heard. No denial of natural justice.

Similar in Narula Dyeing and Printing works v UOI, directions u/s 5 by Gujju SPCB to close down. They
challenged powers of state govt to do so and no personal hearing. Court said centr govt can delegate
u/s 23 of the Act.
In sachidanand pandey v state of WB

Damodaran nair v state of kerala

Chap III

Prevention, control and abatement of env pollution

1. Preventive measures to be taken by institutions [S. 7,8,9]

- S. 7 – lays down standard for emission of env pollutants
- S. 8 – safe handling of hazardous substance (specific pollutants) ‘cradle to grave’ approach
- Rule 3 of EPA rules mentions standards in schedules 1,3,4,6 and 7. Can be made more
stringent by CPCB – nature, gravity and location.
- One who is guilty for poll has to pay damages to restore env and ecology – kamal nath case
- S. 9: Furnishing info – about a. discharge in excess of standards and b. apprehension due to
accident/unforeseen event
2. Powers of centr govt to control ppll [10,11]
- S. 10 Powers of any person by centr govt for entry and inspection
- S, 11 to take sample and follow procedure to take sample
- Search and seizre as prescribed u/s 94 of CrPC
3. Lab and analysis and evidence value of their reports [12,13,14]
- Power to establish or recognise one or more lab and govt analysists
4. Prosecution and punishment [15,16 and 17]
- S. 15; penalty for contravention of act and rules – 5ys/1L
- S. 16 and 17; liability and punishment by comaany and govt dept
- Court cannot take recourse to art 142 of consti for pollu fine and cant be imposed unless
trial and guilt
- exemplary damages can be awarded
- S. 16; vicarious liability, for govt dept – s 197 of crpc head of dept

DS Rana v ahemdabad municipal corp, melt of gold and silver – harmful to health of public,
commissioner of municipal corp refused to renew license – to shift to industrial zone- within powers.

Indian council for enviro legal action v uoi: 5 factories – hyaluronic acid – bichhari village – Udaipur –
untreated effluents – damage to soil and water – 60 wells over 350 heactres became red and unfit –
land infertile – frist court ordered closure then later payment – strengthen env protection
machinery. 4 cr.

Power of courts under writ petition

S. 18 – Protection of govt and its employees, corollary to S. 17. Protection for anything done in good
faith.

CHAP IV – miscellaneous provisions

Also, to be read w. S. 15 - 19. cognizance of offences; except complaint made by a. centr govt or on
his behalf and b. any person – notice – not less than 60 days – to centr govt

Notice can be given in acc of rule 11 – form IV, if in UT, to CB/MoEF, if in state, SB, govt of state
S. 20; empowers central govt to require any govt or other authority to furnish any info, report or
returns

All members of authority under S. 3 or any employee under him will be public servants u/s 21 of IPC.

S. 22 – bar of jurisdiction – only criminal courts can take cognisance

S. 23 – power to delegate does not give absolute power and cannot include s 3(3)

S. 24 – effect of other laws; overriding effect

S. 25 – power to make rules; a-j

S 3, 6, 8 and 25 give centr govt powers to make rules in various matters

NOISE POLLUTION:

- Psychological and physiological effects

- Non legislative measures and legislative measures
- EPA – noise – Law of torts – no absolute right to make noise on one owns land to disturb
someone else

In Dhannalal v Thakur Chittarsingh, law relating noise was laid down:

- Nuisance

Dealt w noise pollution in EPA – Church of God (full gospel) v KKR Majestic colony

a. Noise control under IPC

- S. 268 act or illegal omission – which may case danger, injury and annoyance
- S. 290 provides punishment of 200 rupees
- Act of playing radio loud is excusable under S 95 IPC
b. Noise control under CrPC
- Chap X, S. 133 – abatement of nuisance in ordinary causes
- S. 144 – urgent nuisance

Noise control under other statues:

- Aircraft act, 1934 (S.5) ONLY UNDER Indian aircraft(public health) rules, 1946
- To no check to curb noise under railway act
- Motor vehicles act 1988, and noise control – S 110, rules made by state is not as effective to
check noise pollution

MP Control of music and noises, act, bihar control of the use and play of loudspeakers, act, - S.3

EPA and noise:

- Only S 6(2)(b) – and rule 5 – (3,6, and 25)

- Then noise pollu (reg +ctrl) rules, 2000 came into force – rule 5 of EPA – rule 3 of these rules
read together – air quality standards for noise for diff areas
- Cant use loudpeakersb/w 10 pm and 6 am except for religious use only between 10-12 pm
not exceeding 15 days in a year
 - Power delegated to state govt to relax such restrictions was given in the case of noise
pollution v UOI – upholding the constitutional validity of such restriction – looking at culture
and diversity its okay but state can’t further delegate and exercise with due care in public
interest
- Regulation of fireworks on Diwali and other occasions is not violative of right to religion u/s
25
- In arjun gopal v uoi, free trade in fireworks is a major cause of noise and air pollution
- In Farhd wadia v UOI, the court said ONLY STATE GOVT can do the two hours relaxation and
not district authority, further would be violative of 14 and 21

Judicial activism and noise:

- Bijayananda patra v DM Cuttack, to have permanent monitoring body and separate courts to
deal w/ noise pollution
- Church of God, preaching should not be disturbing others
- Narendra prasadji, art 25 and 26 are not absolute
- Mc mehta v UOI – badkhal lake and surajkund area – 200 m around green belt
- Shobhana ramasubramanyam v Chennai metropolitan dev auth – noise produced by
machinery more than 86dB is disturbing residential area – closure of works – env rights as
third gen rights
- Hetalban jitendrakumar v Sabarmati police station – 2 and half yr old boy lost one eye due to
firework – 15k rupees as relief

Indian Constitution and noise pollution control

- Not until 42nd amendment via 48-A and 51(A)(g) to protect and improve env
- Obligation on central govt
- State of Rajasthan v G Chawla – whether state legislature has right to prev + ctrl noise pollu
and make it punishable – ajmer act was challenged saying state govt had no power to do so
– not unconsti and is a reasonable restriction.
- State can make laws under entry 8 ‘public health and list of sanitation of list II prov under
schedule 7)

Right to religion and noise pollution:

- Can be restrained by injunction, art 25 also relates to health

- Church of God – prayer recited by loudspeakers and drums in hall of church – disturbs the
residents – court said they can’t do – they said it is protected under art 25 and 26 – no,
subject to reasonable restriction
- Referred to narenda prasadji v state of gujju case (no right is absolute)
- Subject to public order, morality and health
- PA Jacob v supt of police, 21 also guaranteed protection – withdrawal of permission to use
speakers would not be violative of art 19(1)(a)

Exemption/relaxation reasonable
 - Constitutional validity of rule 5(3) challenged in noise pollution, re v uoi; state govt to permit
use from 10-12 during festive for max 15 days in a year – granted by central govt under EPA
S 25 is valid.

Art 19(1)(a), 21 and noise pollution

- Burrabazar fire works dealer v commr. Of police – rr, fr, noise and health blah blah
- Same in om birangana v state of orissa – art 25 subject to 19(1)(b)
- Arjun Gopal v UOI
- Anirudh kumar v MCD – to close the pathological lab illegal operation in residence building
noise pollu beyond limits.

PIL and noise pollution

- Under 32 and 226