Abstract
Any injury to, or death, sickness, or disease of a person; or damage to the environment, including loss of property, resulting from ionizing radiation associated with a nuclear installation, nuclear vessel, or handling of radioactive materials is referred to as nuclear damage. It was in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident in 1986 and the Fukushima Disaster in 2011, that it was envisaged internationally to install a global regime to form a uniform Liability mechanism in case of Nuclear Damage for all countries regardless of Individual nationality. In India, despite the occurrence of the Bhopal Gas tragedy no mechanism was enacted until 2010, when the Civil Liability for Nuclear damage Act was passed by the Parliament as an outcome of the Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement of 2008. Later the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 was passed and the other existing laws in India such as the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules 1986 guided by the Constitution of India. This paper aims to analyze the various matters regarding nuclear accidents in India and the existence of multiple issues with the same in the absence of a solid legislation, which in turn left the victims with no recourse to obtain compensationor to move the court to assign responsibilityto the wrong-doers in order to bring justice to the victims by affixing liability and setting precedence in such cases. Civil Liability under Torts is the main threshold that has been taken into consideration while legislating the provisions of the matter and various principles of Torts have been used in guiding the Judiciary to provide precedents and resolving matters regarding the same. The paper also analyses how principles of torts have been used to create liability and hold people liable and to what extent. The paper also navigates through the various issues that are yet to be addressed and suggests the appropriate provisions that need to be taken into account while dealing with matters of nuclear accidents in India.
Keywords:Nuclear Accident, Absolute Liability, Strict Liability Compensation
Introduction
The main concept that is at the heart of all these conventions is the Doctrine of Liability. In this sense the Liability is Civil in nature. Civil Liability is the requirement to compensate another because of an unlawful injury to another person or property. In account of this Civil Law concept of Civil Liability there are mainly six principles that are followed and imbibed by most of the conventions and Laws regarding nuclear third-party Liability. The six principles are: –
- Rule of Strict Liability – The strict liability principle clearly indicates that a person who has dangerous substances on their premises is liable for any harm caused if the substance escapes in any way. This theory is also known as the No Fault Liability concept, which states that the defendant will be held accountable for the damages regardless of whether they made a mistake or were negligent. In this particular instance every Nuclear Liability convention and other domestic laws places that the operator is liable for a nuclear incident regardless of fault that occurs on the basis of the rule of Strict Liability. This concept helps the Research Paper in giving a direct view that No Fault Liability is theheart of most of these conventions and Laws and its ultimate aim is to give a speedy and timely judgment of compensation to the victim.
- Exclusive Liability– In this case, liability is limited to the operator of a nuclear power plant, which safeguards the suppliers. No one else can be held liable, and the operator can’t be held liable under any other legal provisions. Except in the case of acts of armed conflict, conflicts, civil war, or insurgency, the operator’s liability is absolute, regardless of whether they were at fault. In India the operator has the right to recourse against the supplier after paying the compensation. This happens in a case where such a clause is mentioned in the contract between the operator and the supplier or the damage was caused by the act of the supplier or the commission or omission of the act was intentional on the supplier’s part. This legal channeling occurs independently of the cause of the accident. This is an aspect of nuclear liability law that is unrivalled in other domains. Channeling is contrary to the existing legal concepts of the law of torts and comes into play to ensure that a party who has caused or contributed to the cause of nuclear damage does not escape the consequences, which involve gross and negligent consequences of his act. The reason for channeling liability is that it is very difficult and a lengthy process to determine who bears the liability through cross-actions. The other reason is that such channeling makes insurance mandatory for people involved in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, as well as making insurance capacity available.
- Non-discrimination of victims- The Nuclear regime across the world and in India ensures that when a Nuclear Damage occurs and where the operator is held responsible, the victims are compensated. This compensation cannot be different for different people. These conventions on the international forum and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 aims at necessitating the victims to be treated on an equal basis, devoid of race, nationality, favoritism, habitation. This creates an equality in terms of the victims and ensures the facilitation of compensation provided by the operator to every victim affected by the commission or omission of the act of the operator. This also helps in analyzing the aim of the conventions and legislations. It provides an insight that the victim of every nature and matter have to be held liable no matter what.
- Exclusive Jurisdiction- Exclusive Jurisdiction aims at finding which courts have the power of jurisdiction if such an incident occurs. Such a provision is a must in figuring out where justice could be provided to the victims and courts of which country holds the power. Exclusive Jurisdiction indicates that only the courts of the nation where the accident occurred has jurisdiction over damage claims in most agreements. The reason for providing the court of the country where the damage has occurred is that it prevents Jurisdiction Shopping. Jurisdiction Shopping is where claimants try to find courts and legislations that are more friendly and convenient to them and this provides them with a sense of protection. The other reason for this provision is that the competent court is close to the victim and that it is not inconvenient for them to travel far to lodge and file a complaint. This helps in ensuring that relevant courts are accessible no matter what which guarantees victims justice, even in a case where the transporting company is located far away.
- Mandatory Financial Coverage- Mandatory Financial coverage means that the parties liable to compensate has to ensure that he holds a mandatory amount of money to compensate the victims i.e., to the extent of his liability amount in case of the consequences of the act committed or omitted by them. In this case Mandatory Financial Coverage means that the nuclear operators have an insurance cover good enough to cover the cost of compensation that has to be provided by them to the victims in case of Nuclear Damage. This also helps in ensuring that the insurers will make the amount available to the operator in such instances. The minimum amount is usually set by National Legislations as per their convenience but they are usually in line with the international conventions. In recent years the amount of mandatory coverage has increased which creates an increase in the burden of responsibility and liability of the operator and also helps in ensuring that the cause of damage is not the negligence of the operator which in turn ensures that safety measures are taken by the operator at his best to avoid these costs.
- Limitation of Liability in Amount and Time- The concept of Global Limitation in amount can be found both in International as well as Indian Legislations. Liability in these cases is usually connected with risk. The full Reparation of damage is a general principle of the Law of Tort. There are many exceptions to this principle, that now it can be considered as an exception itself. Limitation of Liability in amount is one of the exceptions to this principle. Taking the risk into consideration the reason for this Limitation is that the person who benefits the most carries the risk also but in this particular instance the fear of the operator is more than the benefit and it is the society that is actually benefiting from the nuclear installations so this limitation aims at protecting the operator’s liability and the financial burden of the Liability risk is expressed by the cost of such protection. This is where the role of the state comes in. The Government or the state is then liable to the rest of the amount that has to be paid for the compensation of the victims. This is because the claim for Nuclear Damage at times might exceed the financial protection and if the amount is not paid it would undermine the role of Justice and compensation the Nuclear Industry aims at providing. Limitation of Time is also set by conventions and Indian conventions as to within a particular time period an action has to be brought from the time when the damage is discovered.
Altogether these concepts and principles ensure that in case of an accident of Nuclear Damage adequate level of compensation is available to the victims and their suffering is matched in some way. It also ensures that Liability is borne by a person so that compensation is available for such accidents to the victims. The main aim of Civil Liability is to provide victims with Justice and ensure there is availability of Justice with the least litigation which does not create greater hindrance in gaining compensation and at the least difficult level, by providing Justice with convenience to the victims.
Research questions
1) How is civil liability used in terms of fixing liability in cases of nuclear accidents?
2) Are the existing provisions and precedents well established to resolve issues regarding nuclear accidents and in providing compensation to the victims?
What are the relevant Indian Laws?
- The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010
The Indian Nuclear industry was developed as a domestic framework under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. However, there existed the issue that there were no provisions regarding liability or compensation for nuclear accident, in fact there existed no municipal laws regarding the same. It was then considered necessary to enact a legislation which provided for nuclear liability that may arise due to nuclear accidents and also provide compensation to the victims as a result of the accident. It was then that the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act was enacted by the Parliament which was actually a result of the Indo-US Civilian Agreement of 2005. It created provisions to recompose fatalities of a nuclear industrial accident at the earliest through no fault liability rule, fixing liability on the operator of the founding i.e., the Government of India or its undertaking companies. After this Act was conceded, India became a member of the International Convention on Nuclear Civil Liability Arena. The entire legislation to provide recourse to the victims is based on the principles of the Tort Law. At present, the Central Government or its Public Sector Undertakings own the nuclear power plants and facilities in India. Therefore, any incident or accident that happens in these installations, and the liability issues arising therefrom, are the responsibility of the Central Government.[1]This legislation provides for specific procedures to apply liability to compensate victims. The most important issue which was also dealt by this legislation was that there are provisions through which operators have no-fault liability and they hold the right to recourse against certain individuals. The limit of liability on the operator is capped at a sum of 500 crores. In cases where the amount of damage is exceeded the capped amount the liability shifts on to the government which is capped at a sum of 300 million SDR. The bill also provides for legislation where it is specified as to who can claim for damages in cases of nuclear incidents. The contention and the ambiguous issue which has failed to be dealt with under the legislation has paved a way of uncertainty as to who would be held liable and who would have to compensate in cases of nuclear accidents that occur during the transportation of nuclear materials. The issue has to be taken into consideration and be addressed.
Apart from the provisions of Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 and Rules 2011, certain relevant provisions of other statutes, legal principles and precedents of verdicts of Hon’ble Courts that are equally important to deal with nuclear damage and civil liability in India.
- The Constitution of India, 1950
The Constitution of India envisages for socio-economic and political justice for its citizens, being the welfare state, it has to carry out certain measures for the advancement of the living of the people, but at the same time being the guardian of the people it has to take care of the community by providing compensatory relief for the people in case of any accidental hazards which might take place due to the activities conducted by the state. The theory of compensatory jurisprudence was evolved by the Supreme Court of India by giving a liberal interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which included almost every facet of life. The Constitution includes intrinsic principles such as the right to life with dignity and a pollution-free environment. ‘Life’ under Article 21 is not merely the physical act of breathing. Article 21 has given protection to life as a substantive right but a thorough understanding of the Article indicates that no particular procedure has been prescribed. This fundamental right has to be interpreted in an extensive way to provide human life with dignity. Right to life includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.[2] This also applies to the nuclear damage accidents.
The chapter on fundamental duties of the Indian Constitution enforces the obligation of all citizens to protect the environment. Article 51-A (g) states that “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.”[3]The Indian Constitution’s Directive Principles aimed to define the idea of a welfare state’s structure. The mention of environmental conservation as a citizen’s obligation is meant to bolster the other constitutional clause. Under the Directive Principles, Article 48A enjoins the state to maintain and improve the environment, as well as to protect the forest and wild life. The growth of public health, which includes the safety and development of the environment, is entrusted to Article 47. In various legal proceedings and writ petitions before the High Courts and Supreme Court of India, the rights provided under Articles 14, 19, and 21 have been utilized to safeguard the environment.
Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian constitution every citizen of India has the fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable precincts.[4] Safeguards for environment protection are inherent under Article 19 (1) so if a trade is having health risks beyond certain limits and are a peril for the masses then such trading activities are restricted. The principles of the Precautionary Principle ‘the Polluter Pays Principle’ and ‘Absolute Liability’ are fundamental characteristics of ‘Sustainable Development’, which evolved through numerous decisions by the Indian judiciary in Public Interest Litigations under Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution.[5]
The Indian Constitution through the directive principles of state policy and the fundamental duties chapters explicitly articulate the State’s pledge to protect and progress the environment. Judicial elucidation has toughened this constitutional directive. The Supreme Court of India has developed an extensive environmental jurisprudence, amongst the fundamental norms recognized by the court are:
- Government agencies may not supplicate non-availability of funds; scantiness of staff or other insufficiencies justify the non-performance of their obligations under the environmental laws
- Enforcement agencies are under a commitment to strictly enforce environmental laws.
- Every person enjoys the right to a wholesome environment, which is an aspect of the right to life guaranteed under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
- The ‘polluter pays’ principle which is a part of the basic environmental law of the land requires that a polluter bear the remedial or cleanup costs as well as the amounts payable to compensate the victims of pollution.
- Stringent action ought to be taken against contumacious defaulters and persons who carry on industrial or development activity for profit without regard to environmental laws.
- The ‘precautionary principle’ requires government authorities to anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environmental pollution. This principle also imposes the onus of proof on the developer or industrialist to show that his or her action is environmentally benign.
- The power conferred under an environmental statute may be exercised only to advance environmental protection and not for a purpose that would deflect the object of the law.[6]
- The Atomic Energy Act, 1962
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Rules, 1983 as of now, permit only the Central Government to do certain acts relating to the use of radioactive substances and their production and the production of atomic energy. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 is the main legislation for governance of nuclear energy issues in India. Nuclear trade is regulated through the Guidelines for Implementation of Arrangements for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy with Other Countries for nuclear transfers. The Act, provides for framing rules for licensing plants for production, development and use of atomic energy. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 defines an ‘operator’ who has been granted license pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The Atomic Energy Act provides for controlling production, and use of atomic energy for non-power allocations using radioactive substances. Radioactive substances or machines such as accelerators can implement non-power applications.
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules 1986
The aim and objectives of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 provides that the Act be brought into force in order to execute the decisions taken at the Stockholm Conference in 1972. It says that the aim of the law is to fill the gaps in the existing laws and to provide control mechanisms against slow insidious buildup of hazardous substance. The Precautionary principle and the ‘polluter pay principle’ are part of the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules. There is a constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment. The Act gives the Indian government the authority to take action against numerous sorts of pollution, including noise pollution. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a method of determining the likely environmental effects of a proposed project or development, taking into account connected cultural and human-health consequences, as well as socioeconomic benefits and drawbacks. Environmental nuclear industry ever since inception or it can be said from the time of the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process in which environmental factors. EIA helps to perceive the consequence that would resultant due to the proposed nuclear power plants and the impact it would have in the region and its inhabitants. There are two categories of environmental impacts for nuclear plants:
- those which take places place under the regular operation of the plants
- those, which can occur during or after any nuclear accident.
The effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment of nuclear facilities should be able to minimize the negative impacts that may arise from the establishment of a nuclear installation. Evaluation of site characteristics affect the safety of the installation, the design of nuclear installations is evaluated based on safety standards, taking into account the characteristics of the location, the risks associated with external hazards, and the potential impact on the environment that may arise. Appropriate measures need to ensure the overall risk remains acceptable and as small as possible to increase public acceptance.
What are the Judicial Decisions pertaining to the subject in India?
There are various Judicial decisions in India but there are two important decisions and the precedence’s used in these cases that need to be taken account off and looked at while understanding the stance of civil liability in cases of such nuclear accidents or other related accidents in India.
- Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India[7]
In this particular case a gas named Methyl Isocyanate further referred as in (MIC) was used for the production of a pesticide named Carbaryl. It is alleged in this case that most of the machines were depreciated and were not in working conditions including the safety valves at the night of the accident. On the night of December 2, a large quantity of water flowed into a tank that contained the MIC. This happened during the time when workers were cleaning all the pipes with water and they allege that the water might have flown into the tank because the valves were not maintained, thus it might have resulted in a leakage which further resulted in the large quantity of water flowing into the tank. This increased the pressure inside the tank due to an exothermic reaction. This resulted in the pressure resulting through the valves and flowing into the atmosphere in Bhopal. This gas has affected a lot of lives in Bhopal and it has created long term effects such as impairment, respiratory issues, disorders in children, lung failures and reproductive difficulties. The estimate is that 20000 people have died leaving 60000 people injured.
To provide speedy justice to the victims of this case the Union of India enacted various acts under Doctrine of Parens Patrieae which made Union of India the representators for the victims of the Bhopal Gas tragedy. In the case of Union Carbide Corporation V. Union of India[8] the legality of this Act was challenged before the Supreme Court on the basis that Union of India was held the position of a minority shareholder in the company and hence that they should also be held responsible. The Court held that it is the duty of the State to protect the interests of the citizens of the country and they are obligated by their duty as held in the case of CharanlalSahu V. Union of India[9]. The Court also held that the Constitution requires the government to defend citizens if they are unable to do so themselves, and that the government must intervene and fight for them. The Union of India, however litigated the matter in an American Court rather than battling it in the Indian Court on the grounds that the Indian legal system is still flawed to deal with such a huge matter and that the lawyers are not well versed with the laws on Torts and hence the right justice would not be delivered. All the cases being clubbed into once were quashed off by the American court on the grounds of forum non convenient. The American Court quashed held that the cases should be fought before the Indian Courts as all the facts and evidences fell in the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. As the proceedings were initiated, Union Carbide were ordered to compensate the victims with a sum of $350 million as interim compensation by the Bhopal District Court but the company appealed to the High Court which reduced the compensation amount to $250 million and in the end the Union Carbide appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that Union Carbide should pay $470 million as compensation as the leak occurred from the premises of the company. The court held that the Polluter Pays Principle was applied in the particular case to reach the sum of the amount. This legal validity was further challenged in the case of Union Carbide Corporation V. Union of India[10]. Earlier the criminal proceedings against the company were dropped but in this case the majority ruling held that criminal proceedings must be initiated. On the issue of the sufficient amount of compensation the majority bench held that the amount of $470 million was fair, reasonable and adequate and if a need arises for more money, it shall be compensated by the Union and State government respectively. This deficiency of money should be covered as held in the case of Rylands V. Fletcher.[11]
- C Mehta V. Union of India [12]
In this particular case the court held the principle of “Absolute Liability” and considered the fact that only if new principles were laid down would it be a tool to deal with issues related to industries and the related economy. The court decided that every industry that engages in hazardous activities that may endanger those who work in the industry and those who live in the surrounding areas owes them an absolute duty to ensure that no harm comes to them or their communities as a result of the sector’s operations. The court went on to say that the industry should implement high-standard safety procedures to ensure that no injury occurs, and that if harm does occur, the company would be held accountable, and they will not be able to claim that they took all conceivable safety precautions. It was held that such hazardous activities can exist only if the enterprise indemnifies the people who suffered and were affected due to such hazardous activities by the enterprise. It was observed that more the profit earned by the enterprise, more the indemnity should be provided by them in terms of compensation.
One another principle evolved by the Indian judiciary is The Polluter Pays principle which was first mentioned in the Recommendation by the OECD Council on Guiding Principles concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies in 1972 where it was stated that “The principle to be used for allocating costs of pollution prevention and control measures to encourage rational use of scarce environmental resources and to avoid distortions in international trade and investment is the so-called Polluter Pays Principle.” The Recommendation further added that “This principle means that the polluter should bear the expenses of carrying out the abovementioned measures decided by public authorities to ensure that the environment is in an acceptable state.” This was also mentioned in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 as contained under Principle 16. Originally the meaning of the polluter pays principle is that the one person responsible for polluting should the person responsible for bearing the costs to clean it up. This helps in reducing the burden of the tax payers and the government by holding the person responsible to bear the costs of the cleanup. This acts like a deterrent to the issue. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action V. Union of India[13],the Supreme Court ruled that Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 gives the Central Government the authority to take measures to prevent and remedy environmental damage, which automatically establishes the Polluter Pays Principle. The Supreme Court further stated that this action is taken because it is not the government’s responsibility to bear the costs of the polluter’s damage to the environment because these expenses would be passed on to the taxpayer, increasing the taxpayer’s burden.
In the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India and Ors[14] the Supreme Court connected the ‘Principle of Sustainable Development’ with the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and ‘Polluters Pays principle’ and explained them. It held that” Some of the salient principles of ‘Sustainable Development’, as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays principle, Obligation to assist and cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries. We are, however, of the view that ‘The Precautionary Principle’ and ‘The Polluter Pays’ principle are essential features of ‘Sustainable Development’[15]Also, the Supreme observed that the above-mentioned principles mean that the industries that pollute the environment should be absolutely liable towards everybody and all measures to restore the environment should be taken up by them and in addition to all this compensation should be paid to the individuals or communities affected by these activities. This basically means that the victims should be indemnified. Also, in the case of M.C. Mehta V. Union of India [16] the Court held and applied the Polluter Pays Principles. Further, in the case of Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy V. Union of India the Supreme Court held that “Polluter Pays means that the person producing goods or other things should be responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution that the process causes. The industries are under an obligation to prevent any harm being caused and not just to take measures for remedying the damage. The principle clearly does not intend that the polluter can pollute and pay for it. The costs and damages vary from case to case.”[17]
Conclusion
The Critical Analysis on Civil Liability in India is very important to hold the right person liable and accountable for the cause. It also ensures speedy justice to the people affected in such incidents. It also gives individuals ease in filing cases which takes away the time and place barrier. Assigning a Civil Liability in such incidents is totally required to maintain justice in the system towards otherwise helpless individuals. Strict Liability is one of the best steps taken by various legislations which ensures that a person is actually liable for the cause. It is manifest that the horrible situations in India like the Bhopal Gas tragedy and cases like the Fukushima around the world have been taken into consideration while legislating the various Conventions on the International level and various Acts in the domestic scenario in India. However, this comes into effect in the aftermath of such accidents only which aims at compensating the victims fairly but it does not have any retrospective value which is required to ensure that such nuclear accidents are prevented and appropriate measures are taken to stop them.
The Civil Liability laid on companies have been capped on various accounts. Internationally and in India, there exists a common provision wherein the liability is channeled on to the operator and this liability is also capped and finally transferred to the government to compensate the victims. Relieving the supplier from all responsibility to take liability would be incurring a lot of risks whereby there would be no incentive for the supplier to even take up measures to prevent the accidents. In India apart from the government finally being made to compensate there is also a recourse provided to the operator against the supplier if the accident occurs due to the defects of the supplier such as low safety or precaution standards taken in materials or other such defects. It does show a different route from the international provisions but it is totally justified in holding the supplier accountable as this would help in making the supplier more prone to liabilities which would ensure that they would take up higher measures or standard of care to reduce the risk of the accident.
[1]Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, No. 38, Acts of Parliament, 2010 (India).
[2]Kumar v Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
[3]INDIA CONST. art.51A.
[4]INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1.
[5]The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, No. 38, Acts of Parliament, 2010 (India).
[6]Pijush Sarkar, Civil Nuclear Liability in India, ACADEMIA, https://www.academia.edu/27489225/CIVIL_NUCLEAR_LIABILITY_IN_INDIA
[7]Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India, (1991) 4 S.C.C. 584.
[8]Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India, (1991) S.C.C. 584.
[9]Charanlal Sahu v Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1480.
[10]Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India, (1991) 4 S.C.C. 584.
[11]Rylands v Fletcher, (1868) L.R.3 H.L. 330.
[12]M.C. Mehta v Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086.
[13]Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v Union of India, (1996) A.I.R. 1446.
[14]Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2715.
[15]The ‘Precautionary Principle’ – in the context of-the municipal law – means:(i) Environment measures – by the State Government and the statutory authorities – must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.(iii) The Onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.”
[16]M.C. Mehta v Union of India, (1997)2S.C.C. 411.
[17]Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v Union of India,(2005) 13 S.C.C. 186.
