1.      Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- This case is also known as the ‘Dehradun Valley Litigation’. In Mussoorie hill range of Himalayas, the activity of quarrying was being carried out.  Limestone was extracted by blasting out the hills with dynamite. This practice has also resulted in cave-ins and slumping because the mines dug deep into the hillsides, which is an illegal practice per se. Due to lack of vegetation many landslides occurred, which killed villagers, and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural land. It was contended by the mining operators that the case should be dismissed by the court and the issue should be left to the administrative authorities under the Environment Protection but the Court rejected the miners’ arguments the ground that the litigation had already commenced and significant orders had been issued by the court before the adoption of the Environment Protection Act. Later a monitoring committee was made. Monitoring Committee directed the company in certain way but the lessee continued to quarry limestone in an unscientific manner and in disregard of the directions issued by the Monitoring committee. In an application filed by the committee, the court held that the mining activity secretly carried on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused immense damage to the area and directed the firm to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the fund of the Monitoring committee. After years, the Supreme Court of India has held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affects the health and safety of people and hence, the same should be stopped. The right to wholesome environment is a part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case was the first requiring the Supreme Court to balance environment and ecological integrity against industrial demands on the forest resources. The Court issued the following directions:

· Orders that mine lessees whose operations were terminated by the court would be given priority for leases in new areas open to limestone mining.

· Orders that the Eco-Task Force of the central department of Environment reclaim and reforest the area damaged by mining and that workers displaced by mine closure be given priority for jobs with the Eco-Task Force operations in the region.

2.      Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Ratlam is a city in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. Some of the residents of the municipality filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and there is stench and stink caused by the exertion by nearby slum-dwellers and that there was nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district instructed the municipality to prepare a proper development plan within 6 months of the complaint submitted by the residents of Ratlam city (approved by High Court). Afterwards the municipality came in appeal before the apex court of India and alleged that they do not have proper financial support as well as proper funds to comply with the direction given by the sub divisional magistrate of Ratlam city. Respondents argued that the Municipality of Ratlam city had failed to meet its obligations given by the sub divisional magistrate to provide for public health including by failing to abate pollution and other hazardous waste from impacting their homes. Respondents focused to stop pollution caused by a runoff from a nearby alcohol plant resulting in form of malaria. The Supreme Court instructed the Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately follow order given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city to protect the area from pollution caused by alcohol plant flowing into the neighboring areas of the resident. Supreme court also ordered the municipal to take necessary steps to  fulfill their obligation by providing adequate number of public laterals for specifically men and women separately along with to provide water supply and scavenging service in morning as well as in evening to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered that these obligations to be fulfilled within six months of court order.   The problem was due to private polluters and haphazard town planning, it was held by Supreme Court that pollution free environment is an integral part of right to life under Article 21. The Court Further held that in case municipality feel the need of resources then it will raise its demand from State government by elitist projects, request loans from the State Government from the savings account of public health expenditure to fulfill the resource requirement for the implementation of courts order.

3.      M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (Gas Leak In Shriram Factory); Supreme Court of India

Judgment- On the midnight of 2/3-12, 1984; there was a leakage of poisonous gas (methyl isocyanate) from Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This disaster was described as “World’s worst industrial disaster” as it claimed the lives of 2260 people and caused serious injuries with a variety of complications to about 6 lakhs of people. When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, another gas disaster took place from Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries (belonging to Delhi Textile Mills Ltd.), Delhi on 4th and 6th December 1985. One advocate died and several others injured. MC Mehta, a leading legal practitioner, Supreme Court filed a “public interest litigation” petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court through P.N. Bhagwati, C.J., keeping in mind the one-year-old great gas disaster of Bhopal, evolved a new rule, “Absolute Liability” in preference to 1868 rule of Strict Liability. Issues Raised were- Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not?

If not, what measures are required to be taken to prevent the leakages, explosions, air and water pollution? To find out the number of safety devices exists in the plant and others though necessary is not installed in the plant. Court held that the “absolute liability” of a hazardous chemical manufacturer to give compensation to all those affected by an accident was introduced in this case and it was the first time compensation was paid to victims. The court laid down following principles- The management, Shri Ram Foods was required to deposit in the court, Rs. 20 lakhs as security for payment of compensation to the victims. A green belt of 1 to 5 K.M. widths around such industries should be provided. The court directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court consisting of a Judge and two experts (Ecological Sciences Research Experts) as members to assist the judge in deciding the environmental cases. Pursuant upon the recommendation, the Govt. of India passed the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 to deal with the cases of environmental pollution.

4.      M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Ganga Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- In 1985, M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition in the nature of mandamus to prevent these leather tanneries from disposing of the domestic and industrial waste and effluents in the Ganga River. In this petition, the petitioner requested the court to request the Supreme Court (the Court) to restrain the respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till the time they incorporate certain treatment plants for the treatment of toxic effluents to arrest water pollution. The Court highlighted the importance of certain provisions in our constitutional framework, which enshrine the significance and the need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A provides that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. The Court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act). This act was passed to prevent and control water pollution and maintaining water quality. This act established central and stated boards and conferred them with power and functions relating to the control and prevention of water pollution. Now, the question was raised that what is Trade Effluent? A Trade Effluent is any substance in the form of solid, liquid, or gaseous state which is discharged from any establishment used for carrying out any trade or industrial activity, other than domestic sewage. It was noted that the leather industry is one of the significant industries besides paper and textiles consuming large quantities of water. Most of the water used is discharged as wastewater. The wastewater contains toxic substances that deplete the Oxygen content of the clean river water in which they are discharged. This results in the death of aquatic life and emanates foul odor. The Court held the despite provisions in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Act no effective steps were taken by the State Board to prevent the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga. Also, despite the provisions in the Environment Protection Act, no effective steps were taken by the Central Government to prevent the public nuisance caused by the tanneries at Kanpur. In a historic judgment in 1987, the court ordered the closure of a number of polluting tanneries near Kanpur. The court held that- “Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence.” The Court ordered the tanneries to establish primary treatment plants, if not Secondary treatment plants. That is the minimum which the tanneries should do in the circumstances of the case.

5.      Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed against the excessive pollution caused by River Palar due to the release of pollutants by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. Palar River is the main source of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding people. Later, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore discovered that approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land have turned either entirely or partially unsuitable for cultivation. This is one of the landmark cases whereby the Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship between environment and industrial development. The question which emerged for thought under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court was whether the tanneries ought to be permitted to keep on working at the expense of lives of lakhs of individuals. It was presented by the petitioner that the whole surface and sub-soil water of river Palar has been intoxicated and has resulted in the non-accessibility of consumable water to the inhabitants of the region. The Supreme Court analyzing the report conveyed its judgment putting forth all attempts to keep up a concordance among condition and improvement. The Court conceded that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign exchange earner and furthermore gives work to a large number of individuals. In any case, at the equivalent time, it wrecks nature and represents a wellbeing danger to everybody. The court conveying its judgment in favor of the petitioner guided all the Tanneries to submit a whole of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the Collector’s office. The Court additionally coordinated the State of Tamil Nadu to grant Mr. M. C. Mehta with an entirety of Rs. 50,000 as gratefulness towards his endeavors for the security of the Environment.

6.      A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- In this case the respondent industry is ought to be establishing a new factory for the production of vegetable oils in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent industry purchased a piece of land in Indore village named Peddashpur. Within the range of the village the reservoirs that provides drinking water for the 5 million of people around the area. Issues raised were- The validity of the orders passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board? The correctness of the orders of the Appellate Authority under section 28 of the Water Act, 1974? The validity of exemption granted for the operation of the 10 k.m. rule? In what ways that the technological aspects of the environmental law cases ought to be adjudicated? In the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court relied on the judicial doctrine of the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle as it is very name suggests needs the authorities in charge to anticipate, prevent and attack the reason behind environmental pollution. This rule is based on the salutary theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and safety than in the wrong way wherever environmental damage, once done, is also irreversible. In other words, one ought to take measures in anticipation of environmental damage, instead of to hunt cure when the damage is inflicted. It would be better to stay safe earlier then be sorry later. Hindrance is healthier than cure. The Court in the present judgment directed that the authority to be appointed under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 that shall implement the Precautionary Principle and also the Polluter Pays Principle. Further, it had been discovered that the new conception envisages that when a risk of great or irreversible damage to the environment is perceived, the burden of proof lies on the one that is proposing to undertake the activity in question.

7.      M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The Indian Express published an article reporting that a private company, Span Motels Private Ltd. (‘the Motel Company’), owner of Span Resorts, had floated an ambitious project called Span Club. Kamal Nath who was the Minister of Environment and Forests had direct links with this company. The company encroached upon 27.12 big has of land which also included forest land. The land was regularized and subsequently leased out to the company on 11th April 1994. Issues raised were- Whether the court has wrongly inducted Mr. Kama Nath as a Respondent in the present petition? Whether the construction activity carried out by the Motel Company justified? The Supreme Court rejected this contention and held that the forest lands which have been given on lease to the Motel by the State Governments are situated at the bank of the river Beas. The Beas is a young and dynamic river and it changes its course very often. The right bank of the river is where the Motel is located comes under forest. The area is ecologically fragile and therefore it should not be converted into private ownership. The Supreme Court applied the ‘Doctrine of Public Trust’ to the present case. Doctrine of Pubic trust is an ancient legal doctrine which states that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. Therefore- The Court quashed the lease-deed by which forested land was leased to the Motel Company and held that the construction activity carried out by the Motel Company was not justified. The Motel was ordered to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environmental and ecology of the area. The Motel was ordered to construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 meters for the building of the motel beyond which they were not allowed to use the land of the river basin. The Court restricted the Motel from discharging untreated effluent into the river. Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board was directed to inspect and keep a check.

8.      M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Vehicular Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Union Territory of Delhi has a total population of 96 lakhs. Out of this population approximately 90 lakh people reside in urban areas. At the time of independence the population of Delhi was around 5 lakh. In nearly 40 years, it multiplied by 19 times. This writ petition was filed by M.C. Mehta requesting the court to pass appropriate orders for the reduction of Vehicular Pollution in Delhi. Supreme Court in this case held that Indian constitution recognizes the importance of protection of environment, life, flora and fauna by the virtue of Article 51-A and Directive principles of state policy. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to protect the environment and all the persons using automobiles should have a fair idea of the harmful effects on the environment due to emissions caused by their vehicles.  A committee was setup to look in to the problem and decide on what can be done. The committee was setup with the following objectives –

• To make an assessment of the technologies available for vehicular pollution control in the world;
• To make an assessment of the current status of technology available in India for controlling vehicular pollution;
• To look at the low cost alternatives for operating vehicles at reduced pollution levels in the metropolitan cities of India.
• To examine the feasibility of measures to reduce/eliminate pollution from motor vehicles both on short term and long term basis and make appropriate recommendations in this regard;
• To make specific recommendations on the administrative/legal regulations required for implementing the recommendations.

The committee was ordered to give reports in two months and also mention the steps taken.

9.      Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed by the way of Public Interest Litigation by Subhash Kumar for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the discharge of sludge/slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution. The State Pollution Control Board failed to take actions against the Company and permitted the pollution of the water and the State of Bihar instead of taking actions, it is granting a lease on the payment of royalty for collection of slurry to various persons. Issue raised was whether the water of the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of the slurry from the Company? The apex court held that the right to get pollution free water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21. Following this, the right to pollution free environment was incorporated under the head of right to life and all the laws courts within the Indian Territory were bound to follow. Public health and ecology were held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the constitution of a green bench was also ordered by the Supreme Court. The Tata Iron & Steel Co. has been granted sanction from the Board for discharging effluents from their outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Before granting the discharge of the effluents to the Bokaro River, the Board has analyzed and monitored that the effluents generated did not pollute the river. It was clear from the facts that and pleadings on behalf of the Respondent that there was no good reason to accept Petitioner’s contentions that the water of Bokaro River was polluted by the discharge of slurry/sludge from the respondent Company, on the other hand, the bench found that effective steps were taken by State Pollution Control Board to check pollution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

10.  Samit Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- In this case, an environmentalist filed an application regarding the damage caused by the sinking of a ship which was carrying coal, fuel oil and diesel. Due to the sinking, a thick oil layer was formed on the surface of the sea which caused damage to the marine ecosystem. This case was held to involve questions of public importance and significance of environmental jurisprudence. The tribunal noticed the negligence. The sinking of the ship was the result of the negligence of the Respondents and upholding the principle of Polluter Pay. The Tribunal has further held that it has power to grant compensation for the costs incurred by the Central Government to clean the wrecks which may pose hazards to navigation and to marine environment. The Court thereby reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. The Tribunal held that the ship sinking accident is said to have led to the pollution of the marine environment on three counts: (a) Dumping of the cargo on the ship, i.e., coal in to the sea; (b) Release of the Fuel oil stored on board and the resultant oil spill caused by it and (c) wreckage of the ship itself, which contained the materials. In the present case, the ship used in the transport is unseaworthy and the respondents should have never used the ship for transport purpose. Therefore, in the present case, sinking of the ship is held equivalent to dumping. Environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores was imposed. This is one of the biggest compensation ever made by private entity to government.

11.  Ms. Betty C. Alvares v. The State of Goa and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- A complaint regarding various instances of illegal construction in the Coastal Regulation Zone of Candolim, Goa was made by a personal of foreign nationality. Her name was Betta Alvarez. The first objection was that Betty Alvarez had no locus standi in the matter because she was not an Indian citizen and thus legally incompetent to file the petition under Article 21 because as a non-citizen, she has not been guaranteed any right under the Indian Constitution. The second objection was that the matter was barred by the law of limitation and should be dismissed. The case was initiated in the Honorable High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa in the form of a PIL but by an order dated Oct 23, 2012, the Writ Petition was transferred to the National Green Tribunal. Therefore The Tribunal in bold terms stated that even assuming that the Applicant – Betty Alvarez is not a citizen of India, the Application is still maintainable as she had filed several other writ petitions and contempt applications before she filed the present application, in which she had asserted that the Respondents had raised some illegal constructions by way of which they were encroaching the sea beaches along with governmental properties. The Court laid down in very bold terms that once it is found that any person can file a proceeding related to the environmental dispute, Ms. Betty’s application is maintainable without regards to the question of her nationality.

12.  Art of Living Case on Yamuna Flood Plain; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- The National Green Tribunal (NGT) held the Art of Living Foundation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar responsible for the alleged damage caused to the Yamuna floodplains due to the World Cultural Festival organized in March 2016. NGT Panel found that the organizers of the Art of Living Festival violated the environmental norms and it has severely damaged the food plane area at the bank of Yamuna River in Delhi. Earlier, the Government of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has permitted the Art of living festival organizers but it was an under some conditions. The NGT panel imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on Art of Living Foundation as environmental compensation after coming down heavily on the foundation for not disclosing its full plans. The panel also warned AOL Foundation that in case of failure to pay the penalized amount the grant of Rs.2.5 crore which the ministry of culture is supposed to pay AOL will be attached. While reacting with dismay to the verdict, the Art of Living Foundation expressed disappointment and claimed that it had complied with all environment laws and norms and its’ submissions were not considered by NGT. The Art of Living Foundation said in a statement that-“We will appeal to Supreme Court. We are confident that we will get justice.”

13.  -Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- The Save Mon Region Federation, on behalf of the Monpa indigenous community, challenged the environmental clearance granted for the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Naymjang Chhu River.  The Federation pointed to faults in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure and a lack of close scrutiny of the project by the expert appraisal committee (EAC). The National Green Tribunal concluded: “It is true that hydel power project provides eco friendly renewable source of energy and its development is necessary, however, we are of the considered view that such development should be ‘sustainable development’ without there being any irretrievable loss to environment. We are also of the view that studies done should be open for public consultation in order to offer an opportunity to affected persons having plausible stake in environment to express their concerns following such studies. This would facilitate objective decision by the EAC on all environmental issues and open a way for sustainable development of the region.” Therefore, the project was close to a wintering site for a bird Black-necked Crane, which is included under Schedule I species under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. It also comes under the ‘Threatened Birds of India’ literature by the appellants in this case. It also had other endangered species such as the red panda, snow leopard, etc. The tribunal gave orders to suspend the clearance for the project. It also directed the EAC to make a new proposal for environmental clearance. The tribunal also directed the Ministry of Environment and Forest in the country to prepare a study on the protection of the bird involved in the case.

14.  Almitra H. Patel & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- This case has been the biggest case dealing with the solid waste in India. In this case, Mrs. Almitra Patel and another had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court whereby the Petitioner sought the immediate and urgent improvement in the practices that are presently adopted for the way Municipal Solid Waste or garbage is treated in India. The Tribunal found that the magnitude of the problem was gigantic because over a lakh tonnes of raw garbage is dumped every day and there is no proper treatment of this raw garbage which is dumped just outside the city limits on land, along highway, lakes. The Tribunal noted the requirement of conversion of this waste into a source of power and fuel to be used for society’s benefit, taking into consideration the Principles of Circular Economy. The tribunal considered it one of the major problems faced by India over the last few years as lakh tonnes of garbage go without proper treatment and just dumped outside the city in the outskirts. The tribunal noted the requirement to solve this problem and make it a source of power for the benefit of society. After hearing the case the tribunal issued over 25 directions. The tribunal asked all the states and UTs to strictly follow and implement the Solid Management Rules, 2016. A complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands was made after the case. Absolute segregation has been made mandatory in waste to energy plants and landfills should be used for depositing inert waste only and are subject to bio-stabilization within 6 months. The most important direction of the Tribunal was a complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfills.

15.  K.M. Chinnappa, T.N.  Godavarnam v. Union of India & ors. ; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The court held that- Environmental law is an instrument to protect and improve the environment and to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. In view of the enormous challenges thrown by the industrial revolutions, the legislatures throw out the world are busy in this exercise. In a number of cases, sentences of imprisonment have been imposed. Apart from the direct cost to business of complying with the stricter regulatory controls, the potential liabilities for non compliance are also increasing. In the present case the Forest Advisory Committee under the Conservation Act on 11/07/2001 examined the renewal proposal in respect of the Company’s mining lease. The Ministry of Environment and Forests deferred a formal decision on the said recommendation as the matter was pending before this court. Taking note of factual background, it is proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which the time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfillment of the recommendations made by the Committee on ecological aspects.  Before, we part with this case; note that with concern that the State and Central Government were not very consistent. Whatever be the justification, it was but imperative due application of mind should have been made before taking particular stand. Certain proceedings have been initiated against the company and these proceedings shall be considered by the respective forums/courts.

The post 15 Landmark Judgments on Environmental Protection appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Date: 5^th November 2016

Venue: Celebration Gardens, Jogiwala, Haridwar Road, opp. Rajeshwari Nursery, Dehradun

Aadi Shakti Mission

We at Aadi Shakti Mission want to enhance the awareness of public at large in order to make and stay them healthy.

Aadi Shakti is also trying to give legal assistance to the needy and to fulfill this we have planned to organize legal camps in various different regions, so that people at large may be benefited. We also cherish to secure the heritage of Uttarakhand, enhance cosmic energy present in us. Where we have kept our sight to study about the sidh Pitts of Uttarakhand and to help govt. to enhance tourism and secure our heritage.

Thus this seminar will be a way forward to motivate and aware people for environment protection, which is one important objective of Aadi Shakti Mission.

Theme of the Seminar:

“Socio –legal dimensions of environmental law”

The National Seminar aims at

1. Bridge the gap between seeker and knowledge.
2. Raise awareness on different environmental issues.
3. Promote ,encourage and initiate research related to the different environmental issues.
4. Analyze the public policies and their implementation in the field of environmental law.

About Dehradun and Celebration (Venue for seminar)

The beautiful town is referred as the gateway to mussoorie and Garhwal Himalayas interior. One of the best place in providing education & oldest cities in the country.

A sprawling city, speckled with magical places, steeped in history is an ideal spot for those who want adventure in their life. Try hands in adventures like camping, skiing, angling and river rafting. Experience adventurous stay at Dehradun.

For adventurous packages at discounted rate for the participants of conference is given by leading Travel agency of Dehradun “Faith Trek’s and Tours”.

Faith Trek’s and Tours is a sponsor partner  in this conference.

• All the conference participants will receive 25% discount on the packages .Whoever is interested for the exciting and advent ours stay at dehradun, may visit website: campinkanatal.com OR you may call for any assistance in relation to camping at mobile number : 09897052419
• If interested, you need to register with us, so that we can able to make your stay happier and adventurous.
• Discount on packages for the participants of conference is available during 1^st November 2016 to 30^th November 2016, a month in which conference is organized.

SUB THEMES:

1. Liability for environment degradation.
2. Environment and forest law.
3. Role of statutory bodies in the protection of environment.
4. Environmental criminal Law.
5. Environmental policy and law.
6. Environmental rights: Advocacy to protect.
7. International and comparative environmental Law.
8. Environmental impact of industrialization, such as: electricity generation, hydraulic fracturing etc.
9. Impact of energy laws on environment.
10. The next generation of environmental law.

CALL FOR PAPERS:

          AADI SHAKTI Mission invites well researched papers to be presented in the National Seminar on the subthemes mentioned above or any other relevant with the theme of the seminar.

GUIDELINES FOR PAPER SUBMISSION

1. Paper should be emailed: aadishakticonference@gmail.com OR aadishaktidehradun@gmail.com

2. Each paper can be submitted to only one track. At the time of submission, submitted papers must not have been published or accepted for publication.
3. Authors must make two initial submission decisions. Choose
   1. The most appropriate track(presentation/poster)
   2. The most appropriate set of keywords
4. Formatting guidelines:
   1. Full paper: not more than 5000 words
   2. Abstract: not more than 200 words with maximum 7 key words
   3. Figures, graphs, tables, appendices and references should follow the JIBS style guide.
   4. Use times roman 12-point font, double spaced, 1-inch (2.5 cm) margin all around, references can be single spaced.
   5. All manuscripts must be in English.
   6. Abstract and full paper should be submitted only by soft copy.
   7. Selected papers will be presented in the conference.
   8. All papers are subject to scrutiny by the advisory committee.
   9. We do not allow any changes in the paper title, abstract, authorship and actual paper after the submission deadline.

Best Seminar Paper Award:

Cash prize and merit certificate will be awarded to best three papers selected by the Seminar organizing committee.

Event Partner:

1. Knowledgeesteez.com

Media Partner:

1. Legal Desire Media & Publications (www.legaldesire.com)
2. Law Mantra

3) http://legge-rhythms.weebly.com/

Mail your submission to

1. aadishakticonference@gmail.com

2. aadishaktidehradun@gmail.com

Important dates:

Abstract submission: 27^th of September 2016

Submission of Draft: 20^th of October 2016

Send Draft in favor, “Aadi Shakti mission” payable at Dehradun

Send Draft at:

Aadi Shakti Mission

Plot no. 02(6 number pulia), upper Nathanpur

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

Full paper submission: 25^th of October2016

Conference date: 5^th   of November 2016

Registration Fees:

Students: Rs.2000 (with lodging)

 Rs.  1000(without lodging)

Faculty &other:

Rs. 3000(with lodging)

Rs. 1500 (without lodging)

(Please note that a registration fee includes lunch on conference day and tea with snacks on 5^th November 2016 at evening.)

Contact us:

EMAIL: aadishakticonference@gmail.com

Website: www.aadishaktimission.com

Face book: https://m.facebook.com/aadishaktimission

For any assistance, please call

1. 9634456922
2. 9634630854

Seminar organizing committee

• Nishant Kumar, Advocate (convener)
• Niteesh Upadhyaya, Professor (convener)
• Sushma Juyal Anthwal ,Advocate(convener)
• Shalini Bahuguna, Professor
• Rachna Raturi, Healer & Social worker

Student Coordinators:-

1. Mahak Rathee: ratheemahak@gmail.com

2. Aakash Chaturvedi: Aakashchaturvedi304@gmail.com

3. Vidushi Anthwal: Vidushi.anth22@gmail.com

Hospitality

• Harish Juyal,
  (Leading expert in E2E approach and Domain expert in Service industry with strong clientage.)

Seminar Members:

• Hemant Anthwal,

(Leading Environmentalist)

• Deepak Juyal,
  ( expertise in multi domain )
• Arvind Bachheti
  (Media consultant)
• Pawan Negi , Doordarshan, Senior Cameraperson
• S.Rawat ,Doordarshan, Senior Producer
• Mukul ,(Eminent Psychologist)
• K.Pandey, Advocate
• Tasarruf Ahmad,Professor

Join Us: For social good.

The post National Seminar on “Socio–Legal Dimensions of Environmental Law” appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Introduction

                                                 “The basic insight of ecology is that all living things exist in interrelated systems; nothing exists in isolation. The world system is weblike; to pluck one strand is to cause all to vibrate; whatever happens to one part has ramifications for all the rest. Our actions are not individual but social; they reverberate throughout the whole ecosystem”[1].

Over the years there is a brawl between technological advancement of a country at the cost of environment. After the independence of India, the main concern of the economists was to strengthen the economy of the country and primarily to ensure safe drinking water and food for all.  The initial decades were devoted to the development of agrarian societies only but later on it was felt that it is not possible to stand among strong economies of the world without devising the means for self-development. Import of technologies from developed countries was costing too much for a developing country and so, the thought shifted to the industrial and technological development of India. At that time for the sake of self-help and industrialization resources of the country were exploited without any thought of the future but globally the whisper about the concept of “sustainable development” was started and same drew the attention of India. Sustainable development simply means the thoughtful use of resources, considering the future generations without compromising the need of today. It was in 1970s that for the first time the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm brought the industrialized and developing nations together to delineate the ‘rights’ of the human family to a healthy and productive environment. Thereafter, in 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2009 conferences were organized worldwide to streamline and analyze the concept of sustainable development and environment protection.  Earlier only Article 21 was considered as protector of environment as judicial precedents proved that this right directly flows from right to life. However, it was in 1976 only when 42^nd amendment was introduced in the Indian Constitution and protection of environment was made as a Directive principle for state policy under Article 48A[2] and a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g)[3]. Today protection of environment is fundamental duty of every citizen as well as Directive principle for the State. It cannot be denied that exploitation of resources is necessary for the development of the country but planned, systematized and only necessary exploitation is our main concern today. Since independence many legislative framework came into existence and shape like The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and many more. All such enactments provide for protection of a particular resource of the country but they all lacks in execution of the guidelines mentioned there. So, there was a constant demand of strong execution machinery, in fact machinery which can adjudicate as well as execute such adjudication. Although under most of the above-mentioned Acts there is a mention of Central pollution control board and State pollution control board but they were mere industry set up clearance gateways and not an adjudicatory authorities in true sense. They are basically established to check local conditions suitable for an industry and works with the appropriate government. There are many precedents where Supreme Court emphasized on the need of special courts for the environment issues. Environment is one such issue sensitized where matter cannot be adjudicated without the help of experts. In case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India[4], the court observed that “Environment Court” must be established for expeditious disposal of environmental cases. Same point was reiterated in case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu[5] and Indian Council for environment legal action v. Unioin of India[6].  Responding to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Indian parliament has passed two Acts namely National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997[7]. However, these two Acts proved as dead letter and a non-starter. These two tribunals were not efficient to handle sensitive matters of environment and economic development.   Closure of these tribunals created a judicial vacuum as there was no forum for new cases, and the pending cases were left in limbo.  At that time if a case pertaining to the subject of environment came up before the court then the court hesitated in imposing penalty on the polluter because of lack of knowledge on the subject and so no question can be raised about the imposition of the penalty pre-hand on basis of precautionary principle. Thus, in case of  Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India[8] the court opined that “under the existing civil law damages are determined by the civil Courts, after a long drawn litigation, which destroys the very purpose of awarding damages so in order to meet the situation, to avoid delay and to ensure immediate relief to the victims, the law should provide for constitution of tribunal regulated by special procedure for determining compensation to victims of industrial disaster or accident, appeal against which may lie to this Court on the limited ground of questions of law only after depositing the amount determined by the tribunal.” By that time it was well understood that environment courts would require not only professional judges but also experts on the concerned subject. So, the law commission has conducted a study of foreign environment courts especially of a Australia and New Zealand and prepared a report recommending that special courts on environment must be sufficient to lessen the burden on Supreme court and High Court. They must have the power of civil court, and also have original and appellate jurisdiction. Along with this special courts must take the jurisdiction under the existing legislations so, that there cannot be overlapping of jurisdiction in any case. After a long deliberation in both houses finally an Act came into shape which was named as “National Green Tribunal Act, 2010” w.e.f 18.10.2010. This tribunal is quasi-judicial body and blend of powers of civi
l and criminal courts in many respects. Today, the principal bench is sitting in Delhi and other four benches are in Bhopal, Chennai, Kolkatta and Pune. Now, since the NGT is entrusted with the task of adjudication under the eight Acts mentioned in the I schedule which covers The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1947; The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1947; The Forest ( Conservation ) Act, 1980; The Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Environment (Protection) Act, 1991; The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Further, Section 14 provides that it has jurisdiction over all civil cases pertaining to environment matters. In one of the interview[9] Justice Swatanter Kumar has stated that NGT must have suo moto powers in certain respect however same is not expressly provided under the Act but it is essential for its smooth functioning. In the past few years it has been noticed that the tribunal has exercised its suo moto powers. It is imperative to note that NGT has command over all resources of the country because in any of the environment matters it has undisputed jurisdiction.

NGT as custodian of natural resources:-

Natural resources are the assets of entire nation and NGT are the custodian of all natural resources. Government has taken many steps to protect flora and fauna of the country by protecting their natural habitat. And also it is the duty of every national under Article 51A (g) to protect the environment and to have compassion for living creature. In spite of this provision every time it is found that industries blatantly violated the rules and regulations. NGT has taken very stringent actions against the violator of laws. In case of Shobha Phadanvis v. State of Maharashtra Another[10], the question raised was about the conservation, preservation and protection of forests and the ecology where the forests were destroyed immensely and without prior permission of the authorities.  Tribunal has directed the forest authorities to continue the order of precautionary principle and to prepare a Disaster Management Plan (DMP) for protection of Forests. Tribunal observed that forests are a vital component to sustain the life support system on the earth. In case of Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh Ors[11] , here the tribunal on its own motion took the cognizance of depleted forest area in state of Himachal Pradesh on account of increased and unregulated tourist and vehicular activities. Court was also engrossed towards solid waste management in the state. Court ensured that to ensure hygiene, cleanliness and natural beauty of the glacier, it is essential that no commercial activity of any kind is permitted at Rohtang Pass Glacier. It was further observed that high tourist activity, vehicular pollution and deforestation attributable to acts of emission require to be compensated, restored and maintained in a manner that there is minimum damage and degradation of the environment. Many directions were issued to the concerned authorities.

In case of M/S Assam Stone Crusher v. Rohit Choudhury & Ors[12], industries were illegally established in “No Development Zone”, in and around Kaziranga National Park. So, directions were sought for closure of such industries. Here the tribunal directed the central pollution control board to examine the conditions and to take final call on closure of industries. However, certain industries were directed to be closed which are in immediate vicinity of No Development Zone. In certain cases tribunal has decided matters by taking into considerations of employment of labors working there, financial condition of industry and need of local people. This view was taken because of the concept of sustainable development. For instance in case M/S Leela Textile. Exports v. State of Rajasthan and ors.[13], where the State of Rajasthan had handed over a piece of land to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short the “RIICO”) for the purpose of setting up an industrial area. Many industries were set up there without obtaining the permission of the state pollution control board and were discharging their effluents into the CETP without authorization. Tribunal aptly observed that “Keeping in view the principle of sustainable development, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the time for which these industries have been in operation, we do not propose to direct their closure forthwith but would issue appropriate directions to enable them to operate while ensuring that there is no pollution.” In many cases tribunal has also applied the “a reasonable person’s test“, where life, public health and ecology have priority over unemployment and loss of revenue. Development and protection of environment are not enemies. Right to a clean and decent environment has been held to be a fundamental right, coupled with an obligation on the part of the State and the citizens. NGT has not hesitated in imposing huge penalty on big industry houses for example the tribunal has slapped a penalty of Rs. 25 crore on Adani-Hazira Port Pvt. Ltd (AHPPL) and its associate Hajira Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd for carrying out work at their Hazira-based port near Surat without acquiring environment clearance.  Thus, toady it cannot be denied that NGT is a custodian of resources and development of the country.

Role of NGT in daily life:-

NGT has not only decided matters of major industries but also of daily concerns which are of much importance for a common man for instance in case of Dileep B. Nevatia v. Union Of India & Ors[14] the main question arose of violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000 made under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by vehicles using multi- tone horns and sirens. It was also noticed in this case that no standard is also specified with regard to use of horns and sirens in the ambulances and Police vehicles. In the said order the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways was directed to notify the standards for sirens and multi-tone horns used by different vehicles either under Government duty or otherwise. In Pathankot Welfare Association v. State of Punjab[15] where NGT dealt with model action plan for solid waste by pronouncing it as general law. In case of Jeet Singh Kanwar v. Union of India[16], where petitioners challenged the grant of clearance certificate to an industry to establish coal fired power plant. Here the essential guidelines of EIA were flouted and had not been made available. Tribunal emphasized on precautionary principle and on that basis it was opined that clearance certificate should not be granted by MoEF and thus that order have to be quashed. In Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India[17], the Court took cognizance of the growing pollution levels in Delhi. It directed a Committee to prepare an action plan and in the interim, directed that vehicles more than 15 years old not be allowed to ply or be parked on the roads. There was much hue and cry on the decision of NGT and it was appealed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where in November 2015 Chief Justice H L Dattu (as he then was) opined that we are trying to do something good for people. Let us assist them and not discourage them.  NGT was established with the aim of access of environmental justice to each and every person residing even in the remotest part of the country[18].

NGT creates a new regime of environment litigation:-

MC Mehta, a great environmentalist pioneered in the area of environment concerns in India but the creation of NGT also herald a new area for any person interested in protection of environment. On the question of need of representation by an advocate, NGT held that any person can approach the Tribunal to agitate a grievance relating to the protection and improvement of the natural environment as long as it isn’t a frivolous petition. Thus in case of Samata v. Union of India[19] , court has relaxed the concept of locus standi where wide range of person can be included in term “aggrieved person”.  This decision is crucial as it opens up the arena for environmental litigation to a much wider group of stakeholders. Any person who has reason to believe that a decision will have an adverse impact on the natural environment can approach the Tribunal. Further, it also important to mention that NGT surpasses the jurisdiction of High Court and appeal lies to Supreme Court. Thus, perhaps it is the only court of such nature which gives opportunity to any aggrieved person to seek equity and protect environment without much of hurdles. Today NGT is handling every matter in expeditious and expertise manner and focusing on ex debito justitiae i.e. in interest of justice only be it the matter of protection of sundarbans, management of e-waste or imposition of penalty on Sarpanch for felling trees. After examining the six years of working of NGT it can be said that is a quasi-judicial body which is constantly working and endeavoring towards safe environment.  In a short journey, NGT has proved that it is blend of epistemic qualities of an expert and professional knowledge of a judge which are essential for dealing in cases on environment. NGT has to deal with more serious issues in near future as world are setting new parameters to protect the environment and Paris agreement on climate change is one such example.

Author: Vini Kewaliya,Guest Faculty, Law at S.S. Jain Subodh Law College, Jaipur.

Disclaimer: This article has been published in “International Journal of Socio-Legal Analysis and Rural Development (ISSN: 2455 4049), page no. 18. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, without prior permission from Legal Desire. All Rights Reserved.

The post National Green Tribunal: a new mandate towards protection of Environment appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Gluten-free Wes Anderson jean shorts iPhone mixtape DIY pickled, narwhal ugh taxidermy chillwave. Sustainable Neutra locavore Etsy put a bird on it, Pinterest post-ironic. Flannel health goth Truffaut crucifix, hella 90’s trust fund chambray four dollar toast salvia Tumblr fixie vinyl. 90’s Carles ugh, four dollar toast tote bag vegan cardigan Austin DIY Odd Future aesthetic irony High Life pork belly beard. Normcore photo booth skateboard listicle. Slow-carb American Apparel farm-to-table meggings cray. Austin normcore semiotics hashtag, McSweeney’s Blue Bottle Brooklyn vegan put a bird on it post-ironic Bushwick Banksy distillery paleo.

Echo Park umami selfies irony Banksy. Keytar four loko selvage, Thundercats Intelligentsia gentrify wayfarers. Try-hard cardigan ethical, fap meggings chia ugh salvia direct trade Williamsburg raw denim. Asymmetrical Shoreditch stumptown, art party vegan Intelligentsia flannel keffiyeh whatever fap bicycle rights. Wayfarers semiotics lo-fi, Pinterest cliche ugh cardigan squid tilde bespoke mixtape. Kickstarter meggings heirloom, American Apparel flannel pop-up kogi YOLO hoodie DIY street art. Art party pork belly keffiyeh, paleo YOLO messenger bag Marfa.

The post Alternative Transportation: The Eco Friendly Way To Travel appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Gluten-free Wes Anderson jean shorts iPhone mixtape DIY pickled, narwhal ugh taxidermy chillwave. Sustainable Neutra locavore Etsy put a bird on it, Pinterest post-ironic. Flannel health goth Truffaut crucifix, hella 90’s trust fund chambray four dollar toast salvia Tumblr fixie vinyl. 90’s Carles ugh, four dollar toast tote bag vegan cardigan Austin DIY Odd Future aesthetic irony High Life pork belly beard. Normcore photo booth skateboard listicle. Slow-carb American Apparel farm-to-table meggings cray. Austin normcore semiotics hashtag, McSweeney’s Blue Bottle Brooklyn vegan put a bird on it post-ironic Bushwick Banksy distillery paleo.

Echo Park umami selfies irony Banksy. Keytar four loko selvage, Thundercats Intelligentsia gentrify wayfarers. Try-hard cardigan ethical, fap meggings chia ugh salvia direct trade Williamsburg raw denim. Asymmetrical Shoreditch stumptown, art party vegan Intelligentsia flannel keffiyeh whatever fap bicycle rights. Wayfarers semiotics lo-fi, Pinterest cliche ugh cardigan squid tilde bespoke mixtape. Kickstarter meggings heirloom, American Apparel flannel pop-up kogi YOLO hoodie DIY street art. Art party pork belly keffiyeh, paleo YOLO messenger bag Marfa.

Selvage actually DIY salvia. Selvage kitsch wayfarers Thundercats, cray squid tattooed hashtag. Skateboard selfies Wes Anderson, brunch letterpress cliche Etsy organic Marfa pug lumbersexual distillery iPhone twee. Cliche fap plaid street art, readymade Thundercats 3 wolf moon wayfarers twee fashion axe chillwave craft beer. Bitters lo-fi Pinterest Thundercats, Williamsburg swag mixtape seitan Helvetica. Crucifix direct trade whatever Odd Future. Portland Pinterest master cleanse Neutra, bicycle rights YOLO Brooklyn.

The post Making a Commitment to Environmental Sustainability appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

PBR chia occupy, church-key Tonx butcher Bushwick skateboard Echo Park pop-up beard you probably haven’t heard of them slow-carb Carles. Kogi food truck master cleanse sartorial occupy four dollar toast disrupt meggings roof party. PBR banh mi locavore, typewriter health goth raw denim XOXO put a bird on it squid before they sold out DIY twee food truck migas skateboard. Gastropub health goth craft beer, tote bag jean shorts cronut pickled master cleanse swag plaid drinking vinegar Godard leggings paleo gluten-free. Four loko Austin kale chips readymade pour-over Williamsburg. Cray photo booth freegan tote bag YOLO. Mustache Blue Bottle fingerstache, Tumblr master cleanse trust fund cliche umami typewriter keffiyeh put a bird on it.

Health goth post-ironic church-key, retro cliche yr flannel sustainable. Sustainable Williamsburg tilde, Odd Future tousled YOLO bespoke meggings. PBR&B listicle cornhole, mustache Godard pickled quinoa fanny pack semiotics tilde YOLO. Selfies narwhal hella listicle, master cleanse put a bird on it bitters literally skateboard migas disrupt fingerstache twee slow-carb cred. 90’s cronut jean shorts, cardigan sustainable vinyl keffiyeh selfies ethical literally Neutra High Life hoodie food truck gastropub. Ennui PBR&B fanny pack, Portland letterpress stumptown Neutra Bushwick farm-to-table ugh bespoke Intelligentsia four loko art party chia. Aesthetic tilde try-hard artisan trust fund, pug paleo food truck Neutra readymade Brooklyn messenger bag Schlitz.

Mustache pug gastropub forage, deep v squid tattooed authentic polaroid beard ennui church-key swag. Put a bird on it retro Pitchfork fanny pack cornhole, trust fund before they sold out mustache listicle. Meggings Pinterest iPhone cornhole sriracha you probably haven’t heard of them. Ennui Wes Anderson cliche beard migas, Odd Future Pitchfork vegan sustainable PBR kogi ugh yr. Polaroid roof party mustache, normcore selvage disrupt pork belly. Keffiyeh Schlitz Vice mixtape artisan fingerstache. Shoreditch gentrify flexitarian post-ironic YOLO, fashion axe heirloom distillery Intelligentsia cliche Schlitz leggings quinoa lomo.

The post Feng Shui Used in a Corporate Environment appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.