Environment Law: Environment and Pollution, International Environmental Law and the UN Conferences, the Constitutional and Legal Framework, EIA and Hazardous Waste, and the National Green Tribunal

Unit VIII is "Environment and Human Rights Law". Its first five items concern the environment: the meaning of "environment" and "environmental pollution", international environmental law and the UN conferences, the constitutional and legal framework in India, environmental impact assessment and the control of hazardous waste, and the National Green Tribunal. Environmental treaties also appear in NET Geography, which studies them as responses to environmental change; here they are sources of legal obligation, and the chapter's centre of gravity is the body of doctrine Indian courts built from Article 21: polluter pays, the precautionary principle, absolute liability and public trust.

1. The meaning of "environment" and "environmental pollution"

The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 gives the statutory definitions. "Environment" (section 2(a)) includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organisms and property. An "environmental pollutant" (section 2(b)) is any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to the environment, and "environmental pollution" (section 2(c)) is the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant. The definition is relational: it protects not only the elements but the links between them and living beings, which is why noise, and harm to ecosystems, fall within it.

The main environmental statutes
StatuteYearScope
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act1974The first pollution statute; created the Central and State Pollution Control Boards and the system of consent to establish and operate
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act1981Enacted under Article 253 to implement the Stockholm decisions; air pollution control areas
Environment (Protection) Act1986An umbrella law passed after the Bhopal gas leak; the Central Government may take all necessary measures (s.3) and issue directions, including closure or stoppage of electricity or water (s.5); the EIA Notification and waste rules are made under it
Forest (Conservation) Act1980Prior Central approval for diversion of forest land; renamed the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam by its 2023 amendment
ℹ️ Decriminalisation of pollution offences
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act 2023 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act 2024 replaced imprisonment with monetary penalties, imposed by adjudicating officers, for many violations of the pollution statutes, while keeping criminal liability for failure to pay or comply.

2. International environmental law and the UN conferences

Landmarks of international environmental law
Conference or instrumentOutcome
Stockholm, UN Conference on the Human Environment, June 1972The Stockholm Declaration (Principle 21: States have the sovereign right to exploit their resources and the responsibility not to cause damage beyond their jurisdiction); the creation of UNEP; World Environment Day on 5 June
Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, 1987Defined sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
Rio de Janeiro, UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit), 1992The Rio Declaration (Principle 10 participation, Principle 15 precaution, Principle 16 polluter pays), Agenda 21, the Forest Principles, and the opening for signature of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity
Johannesburg, World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002; Rio+20, 2012Implementation plans; Rio+20's "The Future We Want" launched the process that produced the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015
Climate regimeUNFCCC (1992) with common but differentiated responsibilities; the Kyoto Protocol (1997) with binding targets for developed countries; the Paris Agreement (2015) with nationally determined contributions and the goal of holding warming well below 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C
Ozone and chemicalsVienna Convention (1985), Montreal Protocol (1987) and its Kigali Amendment (2016) on hydrofluorocarbons; Basel Convention (1989) on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes; Rotterdam (1998); Stockholm on persistent organic pollutants (2001); Minamata on mercury (2013)
  • Trail Smelter arbitration (United States v Canada, 1938 and 1941): no State has the right to use its territory so as to cause serious injury by fumes to the territory of another.
  • Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary v Slovakia, ICJ 1997) invoked sustainable development; Pulp Mills (Argentina v Uruguay, ICJ 2010) treated environmental impact assessment of projects with transboundary risk as a requirement of general international law.
  • In 2025 the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, at the request of the General Assembly.
🧠 Rio Principle numbers
Three Rio principles recur in Indian judgments: Principle 10 (public participation and access to information and justice), Principle 15 (where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures), and Principle 16 (the polluter should bear the cost of pollution). Principle 7 states common but differentiated responsibilities.

3. The constitutional and legal framework in India

The Forty-second Amendment (1976) inserted Article 48A, directing the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife, and Article 51A(g), the citizen's duty to protect and improve the natural environment; it also moved forests and the protection of wild animals and birds to the Concurrent List. Article 253 lets Parliament legislate to implement international agreements, which is the basis of the Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act. The decisive step was judicial: the courts read a right to a wholesome environment into Article 21 (Subhash Kumar, 1991: the right to pollution-free water and air) and enforced it through public interest litigation, beginning with Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh (1985) on limestone quarrying in the Doon Valley. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India (2024) the Supreme Court recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21.

Doctrines of Indian environmental law
DoctrineMeaningLeading case
Absolute liabilityA hazardous enterprise is absolutely liable, without exceptions, for harm from its activityM.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987), the Oleum gas case
Polluter paysThe polluter bears the cost of remedying the damage, including restoration of the environment, not only compensation to victimsIndian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996)
Precautionary principle and sustainable developmentMeasures must anticipate and prevent environmental degradation; the burden is on the developer to show that the action is environmentally benign; both principles are part of the law of the landVellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996)
Public trustThe State holds natural resources such as rivers, forests, sea-shores and air in trust for the public and cannot transfer them for private use inconsistent with that trustM.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997)
Intergenerational equity and continuing mandamusPresent generations hold the environment for future ones; courts keep cases open and issue orders over years to supervise complianceState of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products (1995); T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (from 1995)
🎯 Why the courts rather than Parliament built these doctrines
The statutes of the 1970s and 1980s were regulatory and weakly enforced. By reading environmental protection into Article 21 and importing international principles as part of domestic law in the absence of contrary legislation, the Supreme Court gave victims and public-spirited litigants a constitutional route to relief. The National Green Tribunal Act 2010 then wrote three of these principles into statute.

4. Environmental impact assessment and hazardous waste

Environmental impact assessment is governed by the EIA Notification 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and replacing the first notification of 1994. Projects listed in its Schedule need prior environmental clearance. Category A projects are appraised at the Centre by an Expert Appraisal Committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; Category B projects by State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities, with B1 projects requiring an EIA report and B2 projects exempted from it. The process has four stages: screening (for Category B), scoping, public consultation (a public hearing and written responses), and appraisal. In Alembic Pharmaceuticals v Rohit Prajapati (2020) the Supreme Court held that the grant of ex post facto environmental clearance is contrary to the scheme of environmental law, though it declined to close the units concerned and imposed compensation instead.

Control of hazardous waste in India
InstrumentSubject
Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016Authorisation, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste, and import and export in line with the Basel Convention
Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules 1989Safety reports, on-site emergency plans and notification of major accidents by industries handling listed chemicals
Public Liability Insurance Act 1991No-fault liability, backed by compulsory insurance, for accidents while handling hazardous substances
Sector rulesBio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 and E-Waste (Management) Rules 2022, built on extended producer responsibility
⚠️ Public consultation is not optional for Category A
The 2006 Notification exempts specified projects (such as B2 projects and certain expansions) from public consultation, but for Category A and B1 projects the public hearing is a mandatory stage. A clearance granted after skipping a required hearing is liable to be set aside for procedural illegality.

5. The National Green Tribunal

The National Green Tribunal was established on 18 October 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, replacing the National Environment Tribunal Act 1995 and the National Environment Appellate Authority Act 1997. Its principal bench sits in New Delhi, with zonal benches. The Chairperson is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court or a Chief Justice of a High Court, and each bench combines judicial and expert members.

The National Green Tribunal Act 2010
ProvisionContent
Section 14: original jurisdictionAll civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment is involved and arises out of the implementation of the seven Acts in Schedule I: the Water Act 1974, the Water Cess Act 1977, the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, the Air Act 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 and the Biological Diversity Act 2002; application within six months, extendable by sixty days
Sections 15 and 16Relief and compensation to victims, restitution of property and restitution of the environment; appeals against orders under the Schedule I Acts
Sections 19 and 20Not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure but guided by the principles of natural justice; must apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle
Section 22Appeal to the Supreme Court within ninety days
⚠️ The Wildlife Protection Act is not in Schedule I
The Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 are outside the NGT's Schedule I, so disputes under them go to the ordinary courts or the High Courts. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v Ankita Sinha (2021) the Supreme Court held that the NGT may take up matters on its own motion within its jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

  • The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 defines environment relationally (s.2(a)) and pollution as the presence of any environmental pollutant (s.2(c)); it is the umbrella law under which the EIA Notification and waste rules are made.
  • Stockholm 1972 (UNEP; Principle 21), Brundtland 1987, Rio 1992 (Principles 10, 15 and 16; UNFCCC and CBD), Johannesburg 2002, Rio+20 2012, Kyoto 1997 and Paris 2015 are the landmarks.
  • Articles 48A and 51A(g) came in 1976; Article 21 carries the right to a clean environment; absolute liability (Oleum, 1987), polluter pays (ICELA, 1996), precaution and sustainable development (Vellore, 1996) and public trust (Kamal Nath, 1997).
  • EIA Notification 2006: Category A at the Centre, B at State authorities; screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal; ex post facto clearance is contrary to law (Alembic, 2020).
  • The NGT (2010) hears substantial environmental questions under seven Schedule I Acts (not the Wildlife Protection Act), applies sustainable development, precaution and polluter pays (s.20), and appeals lie to the Supreme Court within ninety days.

Practice questions (10)

Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.

  1. The UN Conference on the Human Environment, which led to the creation of UNEP, was held at:

    1. Kyoto, 1997
    2. Johannesburg, 2002
    3. Rio de Janeiro, 1992
    4. Stockholm, 1972
    Show answer

    Answer: D — Stockholm, 1972

    The Stockholm Conference of June 1972 adopted the Stockholm Declaration and led to UNEP's creation. Rio 1992 was the Earth Summit, Johannesburg 2002 the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and Kyoto 1997 produced the protocol to the UNFCCC.

  2. The public trust doctrine was adopted in Indian environmental law in:

    1. M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997)
    2. M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987)
    3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996)
    4. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996)
    Show answer

    Answer: A — M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997)

    Kamal Nath concerned a motel that had encroached on the bank of the river Beas; the Court held that the State holds such resources in trust for the public. Vellore is the precautionary principle, the 1987 case absolute liability, and ICELA polluter pays.

  3. Assertion (A): A dispute arising solely under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 cannot be brought before the National Green Tribunal under section 14 of its Act. Reason (R): The Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 is not among the enactments listed in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. Choose the correct option.

    1. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
    2. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
    3. A is true, but R is false
    4. A is false, but R is true
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

    Both are true and R explains A. Section 14 confines the NGT's original jurisdiction to substantial environmental questions arising out of the seven Schedule I Acts, and the Wildlife Protection Act is not one of them.

  4. Which principle of the Rio Declaration (1992) states that lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation?

    1. Principle 10
    2. Principle 16
    3. Principle 15
    4. Principle 7
    Show answer

    Answer: C — Principle 15

    Principle 15 states the precautionary approach. Principle 10 concerns public participation, Principle 16 the internalisation of costs by the polluter, and Principle 7 common but differentiated responsibilities.

  5. Which of the following enactments are listed in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act 2010? Select all that apply.

    1. The Indian Forest Act 1927
    2. The Biological Diversity Act 2002
    3. The Forest Rights Act 2006
    4. The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991
    Show answer

    Answer: B — The Biological Diversity Act 2002; D — The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991

    Schedule I lists the Water Act, Water Cess Act, Forest (Conservation) Act, Air Act, Environment (Protection) Act, Public Liability Insurance Act and Biological Diversity Act. The Forest Rights Act 2006 and the Indian Forest Act 1927 are not included.

  6. Under the EIA Notification 2006, Category A projects are appraised by:

    1. The National Green Tribunal
    2. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
    3. The District Collector
    4. The Expert Appraisal Committee of the Central Ministry
    Show answer

    Answer: D — The Expert Appraisal Committee of the Central Ministry

    Category A projects are appraised at the Centre by the Ministry's Expert Appraisal Committee; Category B projects by the State authority on the advice of the State Expert Appraisal Committee. The NGT hears appeals against clearances; it does not appraise projects.

  7. Which of the following statements about the Indian environmental doctrines are correct? Select all that apply.

    1. The Vellore case held the precautionary and polluter-pays principles to be part of the law of the land
    2. The polluter-pays principle covers the cost of restoring the environment, not only compensation to victims
    3. Absolute liability admits the defence of act of God
    4. Under the precautionary principle, the burden of proof lies on the developer to show that the action is benign
    Show answer

    Answer: A — The Vellore case held the precautionary and polluter-pays principles to be part of the law of the land; B — The polluter-pays principle covers the cost of restoring the environment, not only compensation to victims; D — Under the precautionary principle, the burden of proof lies on the developer to show that the action is benign

    The first, second and fourth statements are correct. Absolute liability under the Oleum gas case admits no exceptions, including act of God; that is what distinguishes it from strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

  8. Assertion (A): Parliament enacted the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 although the subject of public health is in the State List. Reason (R): Article 253 empowers Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of India to implement international agreements and decisions made at international conferences. Choose the correct option.

    1. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
    2. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
    3. A is true, but R is false
    4. A is false, but R is true
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

    Both are true and R explains A. The Air Act recites that it implements decisions taken at the Stockholm Conference of 1972, and Article 253 lets Parliament legislate for that purpose even on State subjects.

  9. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court recognised:

    1. The legal personality of rivers
    2. The NGT's power to review Supreme Court orders
    3. A right against the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21
    4. A fundamental right to receive environmental clearance
    Show answer

    Answer: C — A right against the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21

    The case arose from the protection of the great Indian bustard and power transmission lines; the Court held that the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change flows from Articles 14 and 21. The other options state no such holding.

  10. Within how many days can an appeal against an order of the National Green Tribunal be filed in the Supreme Court under section 22? Type the number.

    Numerical answer — type the value.

    Show answer

    Answer: 90

    Section 22 allows an appeal to the Supreme Court within ninety days of communication of the Tribunal's award, decision or order, on the grounds available in a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure.