EP Act – Case Law – Section 6 -Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others (Respondents held liable for the environmental damage caused by applying “polluter pays” and “absolute liability” principles.)
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. and Kirpal B.N ,J. (SC)
Petitioner: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
Respondents:
- R1. Union of India
- R2. State of Rajasthan
- R3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board
- R4. Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited
- R5. M/s Silver Chemicals
- R6. M/s Rajasthan Multi Fertilizers
- R7. M/s Phosphate India
- R8. M/s Jyoti Chemicals
- R9. Hindustan Zinc Limited
Citation : AIR 1996 SC 1446
Issue : Is the Rylands v. Fletcher rule applicable in this case? Can liability be fixed on hazardous industries in the event of an accident causing death or injury to humans?
Facts:
- The petitioner is an environmental organization, fighting against the damage caused to the environment and people, by certain chemical plants (Respondents 4-9) functioning in the Bichhri village in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
- The pollution caused disease and death among the village population and this concern was raised in the Parliament. However, no actions followed.
- Peaceful protest was conducted by the villagers, leading to imposition of Section 144 in the area. R5 and 8 were closed down.Nevertheless, the impact lasted longer.
Respondents’ contentions:
- Since the respondents are “private companies” not falling within Article 12, the Writ Petition do not lie against them. Moreover, no actions are being taken against other numerous industries in the country manufacturing ‘H’ acid.
- The Reports submitted by RSPCB are defective and unreliable.
- R4-8 has completely stopped and do not intend to resume manufacture of the hazardous ‘H’ Acid.
- Respondents suggested for establishment of environmental courts by way of legislation
Petitioner’s contentions:
- The region remains under threat posed by accumulation of sludge of ‘H’ Acid and hence, require treatment and removal, expenses for which had to be borne by R4-8.
- Several reports, previous orders and judgments were discussed to prove the harsh consequences of chemical plant activities in the region.
Final Decision:
The detailed reports of RSPCB and NEERI were thoroughly studied to state that there were no biased conclusions. The Court also placed heavy emphasis on Articles 48A and 51A of Indian Constitution, Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 6 of the Environment (Protection) Act.In 1996, the Apex Court held the respondents liable by applying the absolute liability and ‘polluter pays’ principle and fixed the amounts payable by the respondents for Restoration of Environmental Quality. It also ordered for the closure and sealing of all chemical plants and machinery of Respondents 4-8 located in the Bichhri Village.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others
(Respondents held liable for unjust enrichment and directed to pay the compensation)
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, J and H.L. Dattu, J. (SC)
Petitioner: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
Respondents:
- R1. Union of India
- R2. State of Rajasthan
- R3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board
- R4. Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited
- R5. M/s Silver Chemicals
- R6. M/s Rajasthan Multi Fertilizers
- R7. M/s Phosphate India
- R8. M/s Jyoti Chemicals
- R9. Hindustan Zinc Limited
Citation : (2011) 8 SCC 161
Issue:
What are the principles of justice to be strictly followed while upholding the finality of a judgment to avoid unscrupulous litigations aiming at unjust enrichment?
Facts:
- The above judgment had not been implemented to its entirety even after 15 years, and hence the Writ Petition was filed in 2011 to end the ongoing abuse of process of law by the respondents through unnecessary and repeated filing of interlocutory applications to evade payment.
Petitioner’s Contentions:
- The liability to pay has been fixed on R4-8 under the “polluter pays” principle in 1996 and the subsequent decrease in the pollutants’ presence due to passage of time do not dissolve their responsibility because there has been persistent public nuisance, suffering, degradation by pollution and damage to the resources.
- The respondents has shown deliberate disrespect to environmental laws and the SC’s final judgment and they cannot demand investigation of the nine scientifically curated reports prepared after numerous surveys and field visits.
- Respondents shall be demanded to pay additional pecuniary penalty for their conscious conduct to escape the liability imposed on them, and for continuing operations without adequate licenses.
Court’s observations:
- Among the previous I.As filed, R.4 questioned the authenticity of the NEERI Report, submitted its own experts’ reports, seeking the closure of orders passed by the SC in 1996. Serious attempts were made to discredit the report, which led to R.4’s closure. Review petitions and curative petitions claiming that the NEERI Reports have been inconsistent were dismissed by the SC.
- R1, R2 and R3 had made a priority-wise joint submission for a remediation plan and related steps for mitigating the environmental damagecaused by the other respondents, which could not be implemented due to the respondents’ intentional defiance.
- No reports could prove the liability of R9 in polluting the village’s environment.
Final Decision:
The SC identifies the IAs as part of the respondent’s business tactics to avoid compliance of the 1996 judgment, which has rightly concluded all the relevant questions that are pointlessly raised again through the IAs. Allowing parties to review, reopen and reconsider the concluded judgments of the Court is an abuse of process of law, only to adversely impact the purpose and administration of justice. The SC relied on several Indian and foreign precedents to conclude that the respondents had an ample opportunity to be heard and therefore, cannot be allowed to use the backdoor entry method for unjust enrichment. It directed the respondents to pay the compensation along with compound interest of 12% p.a.
