UNIT 19

NGT
PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ACT 1991
• The 1991 Public Liability Law regulates mandatory
liability insurance.
• Under the law, companies must commit to installing
and handling hazardous materials that have been
reported under the Environmental Protection Act,
1986.
• It is basically a part of tort law, which focuses on the
misconduct of civil law. The applicant (the injured
party) usually sues the accused (owner or convict)
according to general law due to negligence and/or
damage.
• The 1991 Public Liability Act was ordained to provide direct assistance to
people affected by accidents related to handling hazardous materials and
other coerced and related matters. Coverage insurance is claimed when
someone is injured at the place of business.
• Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 came into force after the tragedy and
aims to provide immediate assistance to victims of accidents involving
hazardous industries. However, activists argue that legal provisions are not
enforced by collectors appointed as law enforcement agencies.
• According to Section 4 of the law, owners of companies that use hazardous
substances take out insurance policies to cover liabilities from accidents
that cause death, injury, or injury.
• In addition, Section 7 A, i) and (ii regulate the establishment of a central
government environmental relief fund to be used by the law to pay
assistance to accident victims in dangerous companies. The law also
regulates business owners to take insurance policies that cover obligations
not less than the paid-up capital of the business and not more than Rs 50
crore.
• The government of India responded with a number of concrete
legislative measures:-
1.Environment Protection Act, 1986– this expands the central
government powers to enter, inspect, and close down facilities that
are formerly under inadequate supervision.
2.The Factories Act, 1987, and the Hazardous Wastes Act,
1989 imposed various responsibilities on industries.
3.The innovative public liability insurance act 1991: this required
factory owners to ensure against potential personal injury and
property damage in surrounding communities.
• Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Shriram fertilizer case were the triggering point for
establishing this ACT, 1991
• Following are some of the relevant provisions of this Act Defined as:
1.An accident is a sudden or unexpected incident, which is related to a
hazardous substance that causes continuous or temporary exposure or
injury to a person but does not result in an accident that is solely caused
by war or war radioactivity.
2.To deal with hazardous substances is to manage the production,
handling, packaging, storage, transportation of vehicles, use, collecting,
destructing conversion, making offers for sale, removal from such
hazardous substances Insurance – is liability insurance in accordance
with subsection 3 of Section 1
3.The owner is the one who controls and handles hazardous substances at
the time of the accident:
4.Partners, in the case of a company
5.Any member, in case of an association
• Compensation for liability in certain cases without error
1.As in Section 3 If the death or injury of another person
(other than a worker) or property damage due to an
accident has occurred, the owner is obliged to provide
the assistance listed on the list for the death, injury, or
damage.
2.In a claim for compensation the plaintiff does not need
to declare and prove that the death, injury, or damage
on which the claim was based on an action, neglecting
or not showing one’s performance.
• Penalty for contravention of subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 4
or failure to comply with directions under section 12
1.Anyone who violates any of the provisions or violates
instructions issued will be punished with deprivation of
liberty for a period of time which may not be less than
one year and six months, but extend to six years or a
fine that may not be less than one lac or both.
2.Anyone who has been convicted of an offence under section
1, after the second offence has been convicted of a second
offence or another offence, will be sentenced to a prison
sentence of at least two years, which in any case can
last up to seven years and with a fine of not less than
a lac rupee.
CHALLENGES
1. Low Fixed Compensation Limits
• Schedule to the Act specifies fixed compensation amounts:
• ₹25,000 for minor injuries
• ₹12,500 per month for permanent disability
• ₹1,00,000 for death
2. The Act only applies to hazardous industries and does not cover
other pollution-causing activities. Example: Construction industry
accidents involving hazardous materials often do not fall under the
Act’s provisions.
3. The ERF was created to compensate
victims, but funds are often underutilized
due to complex legal procedures.
4. No Coverage for Long-Term Health Effects
5. Delayed Compensation & Bureaucratic
Hurdles
NGT, 2010
• The National Green Tribunal was formed in the year 2010 under Section 3
of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is a statutory body formed for
the expeditious disposal of disputes relating to environmental protection
and conservation of natural resources. It has replaced the National
Environment Appellate Authority
• The formation of this specialised agency was guided by the provisions
of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 323(B) of the Indian
Constitution provides for the establishment of tribunals in the country.
• The National Green Tribunal is not bound by either the Code of Civil
Procedure (1908) or the Indian Evidence Act (1872) but works on the
principles of natural justice.
Objectives
• The NGT was formed with the objective of a special focus on
environmental related incidents including the protection of forest and
natural resources. Following are the major objectives of the tribunal:
1.To ensure that environment related laws are obeyed and act as a watchdog
in case of any violations.
2.To ensure the safety and conservation of forest and forest animals.
3.To prevent the harm caused to the environment due to government or
private actions.
4.To ensure proper implementation of environmental related laws as listed
in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act.
5.To provide compensation to those who are victims of environmental
degradation and who have suffered damages as a result of it.
6.To work towards spreading awareness about various environment related
laws and the issues prevalent in the society.
• Structure of NGT
• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) comprises three major bodies
namely:
1.The Chairperson
2.The Judicial Members, and
3.The Expert Members.
• Also, there should be a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 fulltime
Judicial as well as Expert members in the NGT.
• For a person to be qualified to become the chairperson of NGT, he
should either be a present/retired judge of the Supreme Court or
Chief Justice of a High Court, in consultation with the Chief Justice of
India.
• For a person to become a judicial member, he should be a
present/retired judge of a high court
• In order to be appointed as the expert member of NGT, the person
should either have a PhD. In science with environment experience or
he should possess Masters in Engineering and technology.
• Term of NGT Members: All these members are required to hold the
office for five years and are not eligible for reappointment.
• Who appoints NGT Chairman : The Chairperson of the National
Green Tribunal (NGT) is appointed by the Central Government of India
in accordance with the Chief Justice of India.
• Who appoints NGT members: A Selection Committee is formed by
the central government of India for the appointment of Judicial
Members and Expert Members.
• There are 5 grounds on the basis of which the members of the NGT
can be removed:
1.If the person becomes insolvent.
2.If the person commits the crime of moral turpitude.
3.If the person is physically or mentally incapable.
4.If there is any financial or other interest of the member which is likely
to affect his other functions.
5.If the member has abused his position at the interest of public.
• The principal bench of the tribunal is located at New Delhi. There
are five benches of the NGT across the country with each bench
enjoying its own geographical jurisdiction. These five benches are
located at Delhi, Bhopal, Pune, Chennai and Kolkata.
• Section 14(3) mentions that the complaint regarding
environmental protection should be filed within 6
months when the cause of action arises and this time
period can be extended for another 6 months only in
exceptional cases. (please refer to ngt act 2010 and
pdf also)
CRITICISM OF NGT
 Limit to Jurisdiction: Two important acts - Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 and Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 have been kept out of NGT’s jurisdiction. This restricts the
jurisdiction area of NGT and at times hampers its functioning as the crucial forest rights
issue is linked directly to the environment.
 Obstacle to Development: Decisions of NGT have also been criticised and challenged
due to their repercussions on economic growth and development.
 Looming Vacancies: NGT only has less members against the sanctioned strength of 10
each.
The lack of human and financial resources has led to high pendency of cases - which
undermines NGT’s very objective of disposal of appeals within 6 months.
 Limited Regional Benches: NGT being located in only big cities spread across India.
However, environmental exploitation is also taking place in the tribal areas of dense
forest. Therefore, the justice delivery mechanism is also hindered by a limited number
of regional benches.
 Expansion of Regional Benches: NGT benches have to expand manifolds. These new regional
benched should have been based in a place that has the highest forest cover or large mineral
deposit.

 System of Larger Bench in NGT: Appeal may be provided against the order of the NGT before a
larger Bench of the Tribunal before the matter reaches to the Supreme Court or High Court.

 Addressing Administrative Inadequacy: Vacancies in NGT, needs to be filled as soon as

 Collaborative Approach: There is a need for the central and state governments to work in
collaboration with the NGT for balancing between environment & economy.

 NGT should also identify institutions and experts who can help it to scientifically estimate
environmental damages/compensation/fines on a case-to-case basis.
Jeet Singh Kanwar v U.O.I 2011
• This is an Appeal filed by two villagers, Jeet Singh Kanwar and Vinod Kumar Pandey, who
are inhabitants of Village Dhanras and Chhuri, respectively, situated on the outskirts of
Korba Town in the State of Chhattisgarh. They challenged the order dated 18th January,
2010 whereby Ministry of Environment and Forest (Respondent No. 1) granted
Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the proposal for installation and operation of a
Power Plant proposed by M/s. Dheeru Powergen Private Limited. The proposal was for
installation and operation of 3 x 350 MW coal-based Thermal Power Plant within the
boundary limits of Village Dhanras.
• M/s. Dheeru Powergen Private Limited is a Company incorporated under the Company
Act, having its main office at Sri Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar, Chennai (Tamil Nadu). It will
be referred to hereinafter as “Project Proponent”. The Project Proponent submitted
proposal for setting up a coal-based Thermal Power Plant of 3 x 350 MW capacity at
Village Dhanras.
• According to the Appellants, the mandate of various guidelines in Public Consultation
Process set out, vide EIA Notification dated 14th September, 2006 issued by the Ministry
of Environment and Forest (MoEF), have not been complied with and even flouted while
granting the EC. According to Learned Counsel for the Appellants, the impugned order of
EC is bad in law if “Precautionary principle” and principle of “Sustainable development”
are applied.
• The precautionary principle requires the authority to examine
probability of environmental degradation that may occur and result
into damage. In the present case, it was utmost necessary to
thoroughly examine the viability of the project in question,
particularly, when there were identical coal- based power projects in
the proximity of the area and the area is declared as critically
polluted one. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that
installation of such thermal power plant, based on consumption of
coal as fuel, would cause additional pollution load in the surrounding
area.
• Taking a stock of the forgoing discussion, the Judges have arrived at
the conclusion that the impugned order of the MoEF, granting EC to
set up the coal-based Thermal Power Plant as sought by the Project
Proponent is illegal and liable to be quashed.
M.P. Patil v U.O.I Appeal no. 12 of 2012
• A local citizen challenged the environmental clearance granted by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests approving a 3x800MW
super thermal power plant in in Bijapur District, Karnataka.
• Among the allegations raised by the appellant, he claimed that while
seeking the clearance, the project proponent (NTPC) represented to
the Ministry that the land where the power plant would be located
was “barren and rocky.” Furthermore, the environmental impact
assessment did not comply with the terms of reference and failed to
disclose key information about the environmental and social impacts
of the project. Lastly, a rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) plan
was not disclosed in advance of public hearings, which deprived the
public of an opportunity to express their views on the plan.
• With regard to the character of the land to be acquired for the project, the Tribunal found
“willful suppression” of facts underlying the Ministry’s and power company’s assertion that
the land was barren. Satellite imagery and other evidence indicated that the land
supported diverse agricultural activities. The concept of sustainable development is to
drive a balance between environment on the one hand and development on the other.
One of the essential facets of this balancing approach is to find out the impact of
development upon civilization, particularly with reference to human beings. had not been
developed prior to the environmental clearance even though it was required in the terms
of reference. The Tribunal criticized the evaluation of potential air quality impacts in the
EIA, noting that air monitoring stations had not been placed in proper locations
• Finally, the Tribunal found the public participation procedures to be lacking. It was, in fact,
for the [project proponent] to show that the various apprehensions of the objectors were
not well-founded, and that the project is not likely to do any environmental damage or
cause deprivation of the livelihood and income of the project-affected persons. The onus
squarely lies upon the [project proponent] to bring the establishment and operation of the
project within the ambit of balanced sustained development.”
Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta Sanghatan MoEF 2011
• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has ordered the cancellation of the Environmental
Clearance (“EC”) granted to Jindal Steel and Power Limited (“JSPL”) for its Gare- IV/6
Coal Mining Project and Pithead Coal Washery, located at Raigarh District in
Chhattisgarh. The NGT concluded that the EC was granted without a proper public
hearing being conducted and as a result, the entire environmental impact assessment
procedure had been vitiated. The bench reviewed the Video CD of the proceedings of the
public hearing.
• Having viewed, the CD, the NGT expressed shock and held that the hearing was a “farce”
and all the procedure in relation to public hearing was bypassed. The entire process was
vitiated by disturbance, names and addresses of the various complainants were not
noted, miscreants interrupted the proceedings by raising slogans and pelted stones etc.
Ultimately, the police intervened and used force to clear people from the public hearing.
Despite protests from the remaining people and the some members of the media, the
public hearing was continued.
• Only supporters of the project came before the committee and declared their support or
the project. The NGT also observed that the Environmental Assessment Committee
(“EAC”) had recommended that the public hearing be re-held, but the MOEF did not
consider the same while granting the EC. In fact, the MOEF, did not even comment on the
EAC’s observations in relation to re-conducting the Public Hearing nor provide any
reasons why they differed from that view
Krishnakant Singh v National Ganga River Basin Authority 2014 ALL (1)
NGT Reporter (3) Delhi (1)
• Both the applicants raised a question relating to environment with respect
to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh
Mukteshwar and Narora. It was alleged that highly toxic and harmful
effluents were being discharged by the respondent units into the
Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape
Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed
underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, in
just outside the premises of Simbhaoli Sugar Mills, untreated effluents
were being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga.
The other unit, Gopalji Dairy, also discharged untreated effluents in the
same Simbhaoli drain.
• Reverting to the case of Simbhaoli sugar and distillery unit, this unit has
failed to take all remedial measures despite service of show cause notices,
closure orders and directions issued by the CPCB. The trade effluent
discharged by the unit had often been found to be in violation of the
prescribed standards. According to the Tribunal the unit was held liable to
pay heavy compensation for restitution, restoration, prevention and control
of pollution of various water bodies and more emphatically River Ganga.
Consequently, the following order was passed
Vanashakti Public Trust & Stalin D. MPCB & ors Application no.37/2013
• In the Vanashakti Public Trust and Stalin Dayanand v. Maharashtra 18
Pollution Control Board and Others , the petitioner appealed to the
Green Tribunal claiming that Ulhas River and other water bodies are
undergoing severe environmental and ecological damage due to
illegal discharge of dangerous untreated effluents, sewage and
pollutants in violation of environmental Laws. Hearing the appeal, the
National Green Tribunal (NGT) in its order on 2 July 2015, directed the
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to ensure that the
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) takes stringent action
against polluting industries along Ulhas river and also asked Dombivili
CETP, Ambernath CETP, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and
Dombivali Corporation to deposit 70 crores with the Konkan District
Commissioner for restoration and restitution measures.
UNIT 20
Impact of Drone Policy and Aviation Policy
on Environment
• How drones impact wildlife
•How flight paths impact migratory path of
birds
• The latest standard of Inspections embraces drones that master the art of
data collection efficiently. UAV technology has encouraged industries in
diverse practices. However, with all the advantages come a few downfalls.
Though Drones aim for perfection, they have not been crafted flawlessly.
• Subsequent major Pros and Cons of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) as follow
•HOW DRONES IMPACT WILDLIFE
• Drones can have significant impacts on wildlife, both positive and negative. Here’s
how they affect animals
• Negative Impacts
1.Stress and Disturbance – The noise and movement of drones can startle animals,
causing stress responses such as increased heart rate and erratic behavior.
2.Flight Response & Energy Drain – Birds and mammals may flee from drones,
wasting energy and potentially abandoning feeding or nesting areas.
3.Nest Abandonment – Birds, especially during breeding seasons, might leave their
nests if disturbed by drones, leading to lower reproductive success.
4.Predator Confusion – Some animals may mistake drones for predators, altering
their natural behaviors and interactions.
5.Collision and Injury – Wildlife may collide with drones, leading to injuries or even
death, particularly for birds.
6.Habitat Disruption – Frequent drone use in sensitive areas (e.g., forests,
wetlands) may drive animals away from their natural habitats
• Positive Impacts
1.Wildlife Monitoring & Conservation – Drones help researchers track animal populations
without direct human interference.
2.Anti-Poaching Efforts – Drones are used to detect poachers in wildlife reserves, aiding in
conservation efforts.
3.Habitat Mapping – Scientists use drones to study environmental changes and habitat
health.
4.Rescue Operations – Drones assist in locating injured or endangered animals for
rehabilitation.
Minimizing Negative Effects
1. Fly at Higher Altitudes – Keeping drones above a certain height can reduce
disturbance.
2. Avoid Nesting & Breeding Seasons – Using drones selectively can protect vulnerable
wildlife.
3. Use Silent or Low-Noise Models – Reducing sound emissions can make drones less
intrusive.
4. Follow Regulations – Many countries have rules on drone use near wildlife to mitigate
harm.
Impact of Drone Technology on the Environment
1. Drones introduce artificial noise pollution, which can disturb natural habitats, especially in wildlife
conservation areas.

2. Low-flying drones may interfere with birds' and other wildlife's natural movements and behaviours.

3. Increased drone activity could disrupt sensitive species' breeding patterns and feeding routines.

4. While drones may reduce carbon emissions in logistics and transportation (compared to traditional
vehicles), their production and battery disposal pose environmental challenges.

5. Unregulated drone use near protected areas can lead to stress in animal populations, reducing their
reproductive success and altering migration patterns.

6. Drone-based monitoring in forests and oceans can aid conservation efforts, but improper deployment can
also disrupt fragile ecosystems.
FLIGHT PATH IMPACT MIGRATORY BIRD
• Flight paths of aircraft, including drones, can significantly impact migratory birds
in various ways
• Negative Impacts of Flight Paths on Migratory Birds
1.Collision Risk – Birds may collide with aircraft, especially during migration when
they travel in large flocks at high altitudes. Bird strikes can be fatal for birds and
pose risks to aircraft.
2.Disruption of Migration Routes – Repeated aircraft movement along certain
routes can force birds to alter their traditional migration pathways, leading to
increased energy expenditure and habitat loss.
3.Disturbance & Stress – The noise and presence of aircraft can cause stress
responses in birds, affecting their feeding, resting, and breeding behaviors.
4.Disorientation – Bright lights from aircraft (especially at night) can confuse birds,
leading to changes in flight direction, exhaustion, and increased mortality.
5.Habitat Avoidance – Birds may avoid areas near airports and flight corridors,
which can limit access to critical feeding and resting sites during migration.
• Minimizing Impact on Migratory Birds
• Establish No-Fly Zones in Key Bird Areas – Avoid flight paths over
important bird sanctuaries and migration hotspots.
• Adjust Flight Altitudes – Many migratory birds fly between 500 to
6,000 feet; aircraft should minimize low-altitude flights during peak
migration seasons.
• Use Bird Detection Systems – Radar and monitoring systems help
track bird movements and prevent collisions.
• Reduce Nighttime Flights & Lighting – Dimming aircraft lights and
adjusting schedules can reduce bird disorientation.
• Modify Airport Locations – Placing airports away from major bird
migration routes can minimize conflicts.