15.Environmental Law & Busines
-
Upload
gargi-majumdar -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 15.Environmental Law & Busines
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
1/25
Environment Law & Business
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
2/25
Why Environment Law for Business
managers Environmental Managers to environmental
management for managers Personal liability of managers
Fundamental Responsibility of Industry to protectenvironment New interpretation to Constitutional and statutory
rights and remedies- Linking EnvironmentalProtection with Right to Life (Art.-21)
Causing pollution is civil wrong and crime Legal Awareness leads to adoption for measures
to prevent and control pollution
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
3/25
India is known for too many laws
More than 200 laws directly and indirectly are related to environmentalpollution . Some of them are.
The Oriental Gas Company Act,1857
The North India Canal and Drainage Act,1873
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sec 277,278) Civil Procedure Code,1908 (Sec 91)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Sec 133)
Explosive Substances Act,1908
Mines and Mineral Act,1947
Motor Vehicles Act , 1938 Factories Act,1948 as amended in 1987 and
Many more Central and State Enactments
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
4/25
Basis of Law : Public opinion Vs. International Pressures
Specific Environmental laws
The Water (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Act,1974
The Water (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Cess Act,1977
The Air (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Act,1981
The Environmental(Protection),1986
The Public Liability Insurance Act,1991
The National Environmental Tribunal Act,1995
The National Environmental Appellate Authority Act,1997
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
5/25
Judiciary and PIL
A procedural innovation
An effort for co-operative/collaborative move
An access to public Justice
A source of law reform ideas
An instrument of educate public regarding theirlegal rights and their duties (for healthy
environment to protect natural resources forsustainable development)
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
6/25
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM & PIL : TO SERVE THE CAUSE OF ANTI-POLLUTION
Municipal Council, Ratlam V. Vardhi Chand AIR 1980 SC 1622.
Justice Krishna Iyer-Discharge of pollutants by big factories isdetriment of poor Section
challenge to the Social Justice Component of the Rule of LawJudgement based on Sec. 133 of Cr. P.C., 1973. ( PublicNuisance)
Direction to Municipal Council to stop the discharge of effluentsfrom Alcohol Plant
Direction to the State Govt. to Stop pollution.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
7/25
ENVIRONMENTAL PETITIONS &SUPREME
COURT on ECOLOGICAL IMBALANCES Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra, D. Dun v.
state of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC652 (the firstreported Case)
Supreme Court ordered the closing of mining operation asblasting caused ecological imbalances and hazards tohealthy environment.
Issues relating to Rights to Pollution free/Environment &Ecological imbalance
Right to Life and Personal Liberty means Right to haveliving atmosphere congenial to human existence
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
8/25
Closure of industries (and Installation ofenvironmental equipment).. is a price that has to
be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of
the people to live in healthy environment withminimal disturbance of ecological balance.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradunv. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 652 at 656
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
9/25
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION & PRINCIPLE OF
LIABILITYM.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA
(SHRIRAM CHEMICAL CASE )
AIR 1987 SC 965 Leakage of Oleum gas resulted in injury to a large number
of public in Delhi
Threat to clean environment by large enterprise in thicklypolluted areas
What is status of the right to pollution free environment
Ambit & Scope of Art. 12, 21, 32 of the Constitution of Indiain relation to the principle & norms for determining Liability
Principles of Liability
Basis of Liability
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
10/25
The Principal of Absolute Liability :
an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherentlydangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health an
safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in thesurrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty tothe community to ensure that no harm results to anyone onaccount of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity
which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be underan obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherentlydangerous activity ......must be conducted with the higheststandards of safety and compensate for such harm and it shouldbe no answer to the enterprise to say that it has taken all
reasonable care and the harm occurred without any negligence onits part.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
11/25
Rules of Strict and Absolute Liability
Till the Bhopal case : common law principle of No fault liability
for compensating the victims of pollution
The post-Bhopal period: principle of absolute liabilitydisapproving the application of exceptions to principle of strict
liability.
Law recognises the rule of No Fault Liability i.e. liability withoutfault:
If a person is held liable for some harm even though he isnot negligent in causing the same,or
Where there is unintentional harm, or
Where the person may have been made some positiveefforts to prevent the harm
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
12/25
This is known as the Rule of strict liability or Rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868).
According to the rule: If a person brings on his land and keeps there any dangerous
thing i.e., a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes hewill be prima facie answerable for the damage caused by itsescape even though he had not been negligent in keeping itthere. The liability arises not because there was any fault ornegligence on the part of person, but because he kept somedangerous thing on his land and same has escaped from thereand caused damage.
Exceptions: if escape was due to plaintiff's own default; or act ofstranger or the consequence of vis major, or the act of God;
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
13/25
No fault Liability for escape of dangerous thing even ifnot negligent
Exceptions
1. Plaintiffs own default
2. Act of God
3. Consent of Plaintiff
4. Act of third party
5. Statutory authority
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
14/25
Measurement of liability
In case of enterprise engaged in hazardous industrial activities,
if by reason of an accident death or injuries are caused topersons,Court has only two options:
Either the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher with all its exceptions;or
New and more strict principle governing the liability should beevolved
In Shriram (leakage of Oleum gas ) case, the Supreme Court
thought that
Persons having hazardous and inherently dangerousindustries could escape the liability for the environmental andhealth hazards by pleading some exception to the rule in
Rylands.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
15/25
The Supreme Court evolved the new rule of Absolute
Liability
to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen or
which is likely to arise in future
on account of hazardous and inherently dangerous industries
which are concomitant to an industrial economy.It will not be subjected to any of the exceptions laid downunder the rule in Rylands.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
16/25
The Principal of Absolute Liability :
an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherentlydangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health an
safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in thesurrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty tothe community to ensure that no harm results to anyone onaccount of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity
which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be underan obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherentlydangerous activity ......must be conducted with the higheststandards of safety and compensate for such harm and it shouldbe no answer to the enterprise to say that it has taken all
reasonable care and the harm occurred without any negligence onits part.
as s o a ty
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
17/25
as s o a tyThe enterprise must be strictly liable for causing harm as a part of
social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherentlydangerous activity. The court observed:
If an enterprise is permitted to carry on a hazardous orinherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presumethat such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbingthe cost of any accident arising out of it.It will indemnifyallthose who suffer from of such hazardous activity regardless ofwhether it is carried on carefully or not.
The enterprise alone has the resources to discover and guard
against hazards or dangers and to provide warning againstpotential hazards.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
18/25
The requirement of non-natural user or the condition ofescapeof a dangerous substance need not be prove inmatters of hazardous industries endangering environment
environment.
In Bhopal disaster case the Union Carbide was liable innegligence as
it has exclusive control over Bhopal plant
failed to take reasonable care to warn persons of the dangerinvolved in the hazardous process.
strictly and absolutelyliable for all gas leak damages becauseit created and maintained unreasonably dangerous an
defective conditions at its Bhopal plant.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
19/25
The doctrine of absolute liability may have played some role inpersuading carbide to reach a settlement and avoid a trail onthe merit but Supreme Courtlost an opportunity to confirm thedoctrine of Shriram case in the case of Bhopal disaster.
But S C reaffirmed the principle of Absolute Liability in
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996)
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996)and held that
Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pay Principle are
essential features of Sustainable Development.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
20/25
ABSOLUTE LIABILTIY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE :
RULE IN SHRIRAM CHEMICALS
Enterprise engaged in hazardous activity & poses a potentialthreat to health & safety - owes an absolute and non -delegable duty to community if any harm results
Enterprise can not say - It had taken all care and harm occurredwithout any negligence on its part
Exception : Chairman/MD will be liable except in cases ofescape of hazardous chemicals/gas due to an Act of God orSabotage
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
21/25
D - BASIS OF LIABILITY FOR HAZARDOUS ACITIVITY
Liability for causing harm- Part of Social cost for carrying on thedangerous activity
Law must presume the permission to run hazardous industry isbased on enterprise absorbing the cost of any accidental harm
Enterprise alone has resources to discover and guard againsthazards and to warn against potential hazards
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
22/25
RIVER POLLUTION BY TANNERIES(M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1988 SC 1037)
Life, health and Ecology had greater importance to peoplethan employment & Loss of Revenue
SC co-related the minimum wages to workers of a trade tothe importance of environmental protection in publicinterest
Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages toits workers cannot be allowed to exist similarly a tannerywhich cannot set up a treatment plant cannot permitted tocontinue because of adverse effect on public at large.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
23/25
Responsibility of Executives
In M/s.Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. the M.P. High Court heldthat the Chairman, Directors, President,Chief Executives and otherauthorities were not vicariously liable for the alleged offence of dischargingeffluents injurious to public health.
But in Shriram case S. C. put personal responsibility on Chairman and
others. The management of Shriram should obtain an undertaking from Chairman
and Managing Director of the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., and also from theofficers who are in actual management of the caustic chlorine plant that:
if there is any escape of chlorine gas resulting in death or injury to the
workmen or people living in vicinity, they will be personally responsiblefor payment of compensation for such death or injury.
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
24/25
But on argument by Shriram Management that if such anundertaking is given by the officers
it would be impossible to secure the services of anycompetent officer due to imposition of absolute andunlimited liability
Limit on absolute unlimited liability of officers
Thus, Court limited personal responsibility of officer to theextent of his annual salary with allowances,for payment of
compensation for death or injury but if the officer shows that escape of gas took place as a
result of act of God or vis major or sabotage or
that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent such
escape of gas,
-
7/31/2019 15.Environmental Law & Busines
25/25
But the Court attached the personal liability to the Chairman
and/or Managing Director and observed THEY WILL NOTBE LIABLE
if they can show that the escape of chlorine gas was due toan Act of God or vis major or sabotage.
But in all other cases the Chairman or Managing Directormust be held himself liable to pay compensation.
Thus, the judicial attitude appears to take the view that the
executives including the Chairman and Directors of acompany must bear direct responsibility for safety andenvironmental protection.