1. Public interest petition under Article 32 concerning the protection of an ecologically-fragile area and compliance with environmental notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1125
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : D.P.Mohapatra : N.Santosh Hegde : S.P.Bharucha : V.N.Khare
State Of A.P.
Versus
A.P.State Road Transport Corporation
Case No. : 367 , 378 of 1993
Date of Decision : 9/29/99
Advocates Appeared: Amareswari K. : Kumar K.Ram : Laskar Azim H. : Narayan Shanti : Parthasarathy B. : Prasad G.R.K. : Rao L.Nageswara : Rao Y.S. : Reddy Y.S. : Sridhar B.
The court affirmed that the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle are integral to Indian environmental law and sustainable development, necessitating the creation of a specialized statutory authority to manage and monitor ecologically-fragile areas to prevent environmental degradation.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3 and 5 - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Protection of ecologically-fragile areas - Sustainable Development - Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle - The Precautionary Principle requires that environmental measures by the State and statutory authorities anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation; where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures, and the onus of proof is on the developer to show that the action is environmentally benign (Para 15) - The Polluter Pays Principle implies absolute liability for harm to the environment, extending not only to compensate victims of pollution but also to cover the cost of restoring environmental degradation (Para 15).
(B) Management of ecologically-fragile areas - Necessity of continuous monitoring by the State Government and an independent statutory authority to ensure compliance with environmental notifications and regional plans (Para 17).
(C) Constitution of Authority - Direction to the Central Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, with powers to issue directions under Section 5 to protect ecologically-fragile regions and implement sustainable development principles (Paras 18, 19).
Facts of the case:
A petition in public interest was filed seeking directions to protect a region declared as an ecologically-fragile area and a coastal regulation zone. The region is rich in agricultural and marine resources and harbors endangered wildlife. Despite notifications restricting detrimental industries, several units were established. A regional plan was prepared but found by an expert body to be in violation of environmental notifications and ecologically unviable, particularly regarding a thermal power plant's location and emissions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the "precautionary principle" and "polluter pays" principle are part of the law of the land and essential features of sustainable development. It held that the State is obligated to implement the approved regional plan subject to specific conditions and recommendations of the expert body.
Issues: Whether the existing regional plan for the ecologically-fragile area was in conformity with environmental notifications and whether a specialized authority was needed for the management of such areas.
Ratio Decidendi: To achieve sustainable development in ecologically-fragile areas, legal interventions based on the precautionary and polluter pays principles are necessary. This requires the establishment of a specialized statutory authority with the power to coordinate planning, monitor ecology, and ensure community participation to prevent irreversible environmental damage.
Result: Petition transferred to the High Court to be treated as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- environmental law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks directions to protect an ecologically-fragile area and ensure development is consistent with environmental conservation and international guidelines. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
3. The court emphasized the necessity of continuous monitoring and the integration of sustainable development principles to preserve ecologically-fragile zones. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. The Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle are essential features of sustainable development and part of the environmental law of the land. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. Directed the constitution of a statutory authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and transferred the petition to the High Court for monitoring. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. What is the Precautionary Principle in the context of Indian environmental law?
It requires the State and statutory authorities to anticipate and prevent environmental degradation. Where serious damage is threatened, lack of scientific certainty cannot justify postponing preventive measures, and the onus of proof lies on the developer to show their action is environmentally benign. (Para 15 )
7. How is the Polluter Pays Principle interpreted in Indian law?
It establishes absolute liability for hazardous activities, requiring the polluter to compensate victims and bear the costs of restoring environmental degradation as part of sustainable development. (Para 15 )
8. What measures are recommended for the management of ecologically-fragile areas to achieve sustainable development?
Management requires legal interventions based on the precautionary principle and conservation of natural resources, including the creation of a specialized authority to coordinate planning, research, and monitoring. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 )
(1) IN this petition in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, various directions have been sought from this Court pertaining to Dahanu Taluka, State of Maharashtra, which has been declared by the Central Government as an ecologically-fragile area by the notification dated 20-6-1991.
(2) IT is stated in the petition that Dahanu is a rich area in agricultural economy and is a source of supply of fodder, grass, rice, cereals, milk, poultry and fish to the people living in the region. It is known as "food bowl" of the region producing 37 thousand tons of chikoos per month, 1825 tons of guava, and 21.9 lakhs of coconuts. The fish catch in the area is stated to be more than 3.7 lakh tons of crabs, pomfret and other fishes and 17 thousand tons of prawns. It is further stated that Dahanu is the last surviving "green zone" between Bombay and Surat. 49 of its total area is under forest cover. 47 thousand hectares of the taluka is reserved and protected forest, harbouring a rich variety of wildlife including some of the endangered species such as leopards, spotted deer, barking deer and mouse deer, etc. The creeks and sea inlets at Dahanu are the feeding grounds for various types of fishes. It is stated that the Government has itself earmarked the Dahanu region for prawn culture and fish-farming and for this reason it has already invested huge amount of money in a seed-farm at Bada Pokharah across the Dahanu creek. Approximately, 65 per cent of the Dahanu population consists of tribals who are engaged in cultivation of land and orchards.
(3) AS mentioned above, the Central Government in consultation with the Government of Maharashtra, considering the need for protecting the ecologically-fragile Dahanu Taluka and to ensure that the development activities are consistent with the principles of environmental protection and conservation has declared Dahanu Taluka as an ecologically-fragile area by the notification dated 20-6-1991 and placed various restrictions including restrictions on the setting up of industries which have detrimental effect on the environment. It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the notification.
(4) THE Government of India in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) and sub-section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act), issued notification dated 19-2-1991, declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulations Zone (CRZ) and has regulated the activities in the said Zone. The notification is self-contained and has been made operative by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India.
(5) MR M.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to various paragraphs relating to the protection of oceans, all kinds of seas, from Agenda 21 adopted by the RIO Conference. He has also referred to the report by the Department of Ocean Development, Government of India, regarding the status of marine pollution in coastal offshore waters in India. According to Mr Mehta, the guidelines given in Agenda 21 and the report by the Department of Ocean Development have to be considered by the State Governments while protecting the area declared by the Government of India as ecologically-fragile areas.
(6) THIS Court on 31-1-1995 passed the following order:
"WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Maharashtra very fairly states that the master plan/regional plan required to be prepared in terms of notification dated 20-6-1991 is still in the process of preparation. Under the notification the master plan/regional plan was to be prepared within one year from the date of the notification and the same was to be got approved from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. We direct the State of Maharashtra to complete the preparation of the master plan/regional plan within two months from today
