LEGAL ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

Sky is like father. Earth is like mother, And all the creatures that live in between Constitute a family. Any disturbance to any one of them will disturb the entire system.- Rig Veda

Environmental Standards and law :

In India there is no exhaustive central or state law to speak about the environmental standards. However rule 3 of environment (protection) rules speaks about standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants.

According to rule 3

1.    For the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing and abating environmental pollution, the standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from the industries, operations or processes shall be as specified in schedules 1 to 4.

2.    Not with Standing any thing contained in sub rule (1), the central board or a state board may specify more stringent standards from those provide in schedules 1 to 4 in respect of any specific industry, operation or process depending up on the quality of the recipient system and after recording reasons, therefore in writing.

3.  The standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants specified under sub rule (1) or sub rule (2) shall be compiled with by an industry, operation process with in a period of one year of being so specified.

4.  Not withstanding anything contained in sub rule (3). (a)   The central board or state board depending on the local conditions or nature of discharge or environment pollutants, may by order specify a lesser period than a period specified under sub rule (3) with in which the compliance of standards shall be made by industry, operation or process.

5.  Not with standing any thing contained in sub rule (3) the standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants specified under sub rule (1) or sub rule (2) in respect of an industry operation or process before the commencement of the environment (protection) Amendment rules, 1991, shall be complied with such industry or process by the 31st day of December 1991.

6.  Not withstanding any thing contained in sub rule (3) an industry, operation or process which has commenced production on or before 16th may, 1981 and has shown adequate proof of at least, commencement of physical work for establishment of facility to meet the specified standards within a time-bound programs, to the satisfaction of the concerned state pollution control board, shall comply with such standards latest by the 31st day of December,1993.

7.  Not with standing any thing contained in sub-rule B or sub-rule (6) an industry, operation, or process which has commenced production after the 16th day of may, 1981 but before the' 31st day of December 1991 and has shown adequate proof of at least commencement of physical work for establishment of facilities to meet the specified standards within a time-bound program, to the satisfaction of the concerned state pollution control board, shall comply ; with such standards latest by the 31st day December, 1992.

Problem of Enforcement of Standards :

Though the environmental standards were fixed under environment (protection) rules, 1986 due to various reasons! like lack of infra structure, personnel, technical know how and political intervention and corruption the standards werej not properly being enforced. At this juncture the judiciary played a pivotal role in enforcing the environmental standards! by evolving various principles like polluter pay principle, public trust concept and absolute liability principle etc. Hence-H it is customary to refer the various cases decided by the apex court to study the enforcement of environmental standards.-;

Enforcement of Environmental Standards & Judicial Approach :

1. M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath & Others (AIR 2000 SC 1997)

The public trust doctrine as discussed by the apex court in this judgment has become part of the law of the; land. In this case the court observed it that "pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature it is a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person therefore who is guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages for restoration of the environment and ecology. He has to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of the

 offender".

2. Vellore Citizens welfare Forum V. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 2715) :

In this case the tanneries polluted water by discharging untreated effluents in to agricultural fields, roadsides, waterway and open lands. As result the supreme court issued comprehensive direction for maintaining standards stipulated by the pollution control board. Further the apex court also directed the high courts of the state to constitute special bench "green bench" to deal with the case and other environmental matter. In this case the court held that "the standards stipulated by the board regarding total dissolved solids (TDS) and approved by the NEERI shall be operative. All the tanneries and other industries in the state of Tamil Nadu shall comply with the said standards. The quality of ambient waters has to be maintained through the standards stipulated by the board".

3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India(AIR 1996 SC 1447) :

In this case the court applied the "polluter pays principle". The present case is a social action litigation initiated in august 1989. It highlights he disregard, may contempt of law and lawful authorities the part of some among the emerging breed entrepreneurs, taking advantages as they do, of the country's need for industrialization and export earning. In this case the court directed the central government to determine the amount required for carrying out the remedial measures. The court also directed the central government protection machinery both at the central and the states and to provide them more teeth. The head of several units and agencies should be made personally accountable for any lapses and or negligence on the part of their units and agencies. The idea of an environmental audit by specialist bodies created on a permanent basis with power to inspect check and take necessary action not only against erring industries but also erring officers may be considered.

4. People united for better living in Calcutta Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1996 SC 14447):

In this case the court held that 'while it did not want to impose any embargo on development, it had to strike a balance between development and environment. Since no project report had been prepared or at least produced before the court nor had the financial implications and employment opportunity data provided, it was difficult for it to determine the balance which could be struck and also resulted in it being unable to decide if he project was development project. The court therefore ordered an injunction against the proposed reclamation of west lands, which were nature's bounty as in the face of the existing environmental crises, it would be unwise to further endanger the environment.

5. Muncipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardhichand (AIR 1993 Cal. 215) :

In this case the court observed it that 'the dynamics of the judicial process has new "enforcement" dimension into merely through some provisions of the Cr. P.C but also through activated tort consciousness".

6. M.C. Mehata Vs. Union of India (1987 (1) SCC 395):

While fixing the liability on the liability on the errant people the court held that "we have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future an account of hazardous of inherently dangerous industries which are concomitant to an industrial economy....". The court further held that "the. measure of compensation in the kind of cases must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect".

Conclusion and Comments :

In India environmental statues, though impressive in range, and coverage are more often observed in breach than in practice. The deterrent theory of punishment employed under strict and absolute liability principle had achieved some degree of success. Never the less, the search for better and alternative principles of liability hardly needs as elaboration. Hence mere fixing the standards through legislation will not solve the problem. There shall proper enforcement as observed by justice Krishna I year V.R. "it is not how many laws we are having it is how effectively we are implementing them". Hence it is time to harmonies the developmental activities with the environment because development is also a very important aspect of life. For which the environmental regime has to be to counted and strengthen with more expert mechanism to deal with the longer spectrum of problems hitter or unattended by the law. Primarily meant as guiding principle for the administrative process to prevent adverse effects on the environment, the precautionary approach warrants formulation of expert environmental agencies at the initial decision making as well as at appellate and reviewing levels. Such a step will be undoubtedly a leap forwards towards sustainable development and augmentation of strong environmental regime.)