(..2..)
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENT AND POLLUTION
QUESTION BANK
Q.1. “India has a long tradition of protecting and worshipping the nature”- Explain in the context of Dharma of environment.
Q.2. In India How traditionally environment.
SHORT NOTES
- Dharma of environment protection.
SYNOPSIS
I] ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION IN ANCIENT INDIA.
Living in harmony with nature was the practice and principle of the people in ancient India. It was regarded as a sacred[1] duty of every person to protect plants, trees, earth, sky, air, water, animals etc. The Hindu scriptures,[2] like Vedas, Upanishads, Smiritis, etc, are discovered by Sages and saints in the surrounding nature. They gave importance to nature. Therefore, trees, animals, hills, mountains, rivers, etc., are worshipped as a reverence[3] to nature. The Hindu scriptures directed man to respect nature and the natural environment. Many verses in Vedas are devoted to respect for air, water, ether, fire, and earth. These elements of nature were worshipped like God. Acting against these was regarded as a sin[4].
Many flowers and trees are associated with God and Goddesses, considering their importance (medical, etc) in human life. The Lotus is associated with Laxmi, Banyan with Brahma, Ashoka with Buddha, Kadamb with Krishna, etc. Therefore, with God and Goddesses, these flowers and trees were worshipped. Plantation of trees was encouraged, treating it virtuously. Destruction of forests was considered the most dangerous for the nation and human beings. We will find detailed directions in Charak Samhita for the protection of the environment.
The protection of animals, birds, etc., was treated as a sacred duty for Hindus. Hindu Gods and Goddesses have animals and birds as their mounts.[5] such as the Lion is the mount of Durga, Wild goose[6] is the mount of Brahma, the Elephant of Indra, the Bull of Shiva, the Rat of Ganesha, Swan[7] of Saraswati, Eagle of Vishnu, etc.; therefore, with God and Goddesses, their mount were also worshipped. Ahimsa (non-violence) was the basic tenet of the Hindu religion.
We will find a number of principles for the protection of the environment in Kautilya’s Arthasastra. Even the great King Ashoka had directed the protection of nature and the planting of trees. The great King Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had great respect for nature; therefore, he directed his soldiers and officers not to cut trees yielding fruits for the construction of vessels, etc. He directed the use of dead trees or less useful trees for vessel construction with the permission of the concerned owner. According to him, fruit trees should not be cut because a person plant them for the next generation even though he himself cannot eat them.
Thus, Hindu scriptures, teachings, and the conduct of Sages, Saints, and great Kings show respect for nature and underline the importance of protecting the environment.
In fact, all religions emphasize the importance of protecting the environment. Thus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jainism also preach this.[8] for the protection of the environment. Studies show that India has a great tradition of worshipping and protecting nature. These religions have cast the duty (i.e. the dharma) on its followers to respect and protect nature. Therefore, it has been said that the ‘culture and religions of the world can provide a solid foundation for changing people’s attitudes on preserving and conserving the environment”.
II] ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION DURING THE BRITISH RAJ.
The British did not enact specific legislation protecting the environment until 1860. In 1860, a number of sections were inserted in the Indian Penal Code to prohibit damage to the environment. The Indian Easement Act of 1882 is another piece of legislation protecting the environment.
III] Enactments after Independence[9]:-
We will find several enactments made in independent India for the protection of the environment, viz.
1) Constitution of India
2) Environment Protection Act 1986
3) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974
4) The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.1981
5) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6) The National Environmental Tribunal Act 1995
7) The National Environment Appellate Authority Act 1997
8) The Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972
9) The Indian Forest Act.1927
10) The Forest (Conservation) Act.1980
11) The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
12) The Public Liability Insurance Act.1991
13) The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and development) Act.1957
14) The Insecticides Act.1968
15) The Atomic Energy Act.1962
16) The Factories Act.1948
17) The Disaster Management Act.2005
Apart from this number of legislations, the Supreme Court and various High Courts in India have played an important role in protecting the environment through a number of its decisions, directions, PILs, etc.
IV) Important Cases on Environment Protection:-
1) In M.C. Mehta V/s Union of India[10]
Facts:- A writ Petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to cinema exhibition halls and Television to exhibit slides containing information and messages on environmental protection.
The Supreme Court held that people’s participation in environmental protection is very important. Therefore, the Supreme Court issued the following directions to the Central Government: i) to provide mass awareness through slide shows and radio and TV for environmental protection. ii) ‘Environment’ is to be made a compulsory subject in schools and colleges.
2) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action V/s Union of India[11]
Facts: – Chemical Industries in an Industrial area of Bichhri village in Rajasthan
devastated[12] the environment by discharging untreated toxic[13] chemicals
and sludge[14]
Supreme Court held that- it can direct under writ jurisdiction to the Central government to recover the cleanup cost of sludge, etc, from the polluter
3) In Municipal Council, Ratlam V/s Vardhichand[15]
Facts: Environmental pollution in Ratlam affected a large community of poor people. The cases of pollution were of different types, such as private polluters, slack, under-financed enforcement agencies, etc.
The Supreme Court held:- That a public nuisance exists in a locality due to an open drain, a heap of dirt, pits and public excretion.[16] by humans for want of lavatories and consequential breeding of mosquitoes, the court under S. 133 of the CR. P.C. can require the Municipality to abate the nuisance by taking affirmative action on a time-bound basis.
4) In M.C. Mehta V/s Union of India[17]
(Popularly known as “Taj Mahal Case)
Facts:- According to the petitioner M.C. Mehta, the foundries, chemical/hazardous industries, and the refinery at the Mathura were the major sources of damage to the Taj Monument. The sulphur dioxide emitted from the Mathura Refinery and the industries, when combined with oxygen with the aid of moisture in the atmosphere, forms sulphuric acid called ‘Acid rain’. The acid rain has a corroding effect on the gleaming white marble. Industrial emissions, brick kilns[18], vehicular traffic and generator sets are primarily responsible for polluting the ambient[19] the air around the Taj Trapezium Zone. As a result, the white marble has yellowed and blackened in places. The decay is more apparent inside the Taj.
Petitioners sought immediate directions to stop air pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone and to save the Taj Mahal.
The Supreme Court observed that the Taj, apart from being a cultural heritage, is an industry by itself. More than two million tourists visit the Taj every year, and it is a source of revenue for the country. Therefore, the Supreme Court ordered the relocation of 292 polluting industries from the Taj Trapezium Zone to other suitable places if they were unable to adapt appropriately to modern environmental measures.
5) Ganga Pollution Case
In 1985, Advocate M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition under S. 32 of the Constitution. He requested by the writ to the Supreme Court to order Governmental authorities and tanneries.[20] at Jajmau in Kanpur to stop polluting Ganga with sewage and trade effluents.
The court bifurcated this petition into two different petitions, viz.
- Mehta I[21]– e. action against the pollution caused by tanneries, wherein the
Court ordered to close the tanneries of Jajmau near Kanpur
Polluting the Ganga River.
(2) Mehta II[22]– i.e. action against municipalities and other government authorities, wherein it was alleged that the municipalities and other authorities have failed to discharge their duties for the protection of the environment. The Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to present its proposal for effective prevention and control of water pollution within 6 months. The Court also directed the Mahapalika of Kanpur to get the dairies shifted outside the city.
6) In Sriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries V/s Union of India[23]
(Popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak case)
Facts:- In fact, the environmentalist Advocate M.C. Mehta had filed a PIL[24] before the Supreme Court to order to shift a unit of Shriram Foods and Fertilizer from the thickly populated area of Delhi. However, while the petition was pending, on 4th December 1985, Oleum gas leaked from one of the units of the Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industry, thereby resulting in the death of one person and causing panic in the locality.
The Supreme Court Observed:– That the rule of Rylands V/s. Fletcher was developed a long time ago, and therefore, it is inadequate to meet the needs of modern industrial society. In modern times, hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary. Therefore, the Court laid down a new rule which was yet not recognised by English Courts, i.e. “where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone, on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, (escape of toxic gas etc.), the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate the principle of strict liability under the rule of Ryland V/s. Fletcher. The Court ordered a deposit of a certain amount for compensation to the victim and proposed danger.
7) In The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case[25]
Facts: – In 1984, on the night of December 2, a mass disaster, the worst in recent times, was caused by the leakage of Methyl-Iso-Cyanide and other toxic gases from the company named ‘Union Carbide India Ltd.’ at Bhopal. About 4000 people died, and about two lakhs were seriously injured.
However, the Court did not apply M. C. Mehata’s principle because there was no finality to the decision due to the settlement arrived between the Union Carbide Company and the Central Government for full and final settlement of all claims for 470 million US dollars. *****
[1] पवित्र
[2] धर्म ग्रंथ
[3] आस्था [श्रद्धा]
[4] पाप [पापों]
[5] वाहन [सवारी]
[6] हंस [जंगली हंस]
[7] हंस पक्षी
[8] शिकवण [धर्म का उपदेश देना]
[9] स्वातंत्र्या नंतरचे पर्यावरण राक्षनासाठीचे कायदे [स्वतंत्रता के बाद के अधिनियम]
[10] AIR 1992 SC 382
[11] 1996 (5) SCC 201
[12] नाश करणे [तबाह किया हुआ]
[13] विषारी [विषैला]
[14] गाळ, मैला [कीचड़]
[15] AIR 1980 SC 2
[16] उगड्यावर सौच [सार्वजनिक उत्सर्जन]
[17] AIR 1997 SC 734
[18] वीट भट्टी [ईंट भट्टे]
[19] आसपास [व्यापक]
[20] कातडी कमविण्याचा उद्योग [चर्म शोधनालय]
[21] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1037
[22] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1115
[23] (1986) 1 Comp L.J 25 (SC)
[24] AIR 1987 SC 965
[25] Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 248