File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Strict Liability in Environment Law: Holding the Polluters Accountable

By Disha Sania | Views 19292

Environmental law addresses the impact of economic activities on the environment, proposing regulations to reduce damage. It covers global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, acid rain, endangered species, deforestation, resource depletion, and pollution.

Strict liability in the environmental context holds individuals or entities responsible for environmental harm caused by their actions, regardless of fault. This principle applies to hazardous activities, such as handling toxic substances or industrial operations, and emphasizes prevention and compensation. Unlike negligence-based liability, it focuses on the activity itself and deters risky behavior by imposing financial responsibility.

However, this article explores strict liability in environmental law, focusing on its role in holding polluters accountable. We examine the legal framework, its significance in promoting prevention, ensuring compensation, and deterring hazardous behavior.

Concept and evolution of strict liability

The principle of strict liability evolved in the 1868 case of Rylands v Fletcher. It states that anyone who keeps hazardous substances on their premises is responsible if those substances escape and cause damage. In this case, Fletcher built a reservoir on his land to power his mill, but an accident caused water to flood Ryland's coal mines. Rylands sued Fletcher, and the Court held Fletcher liable, stating that by building the reservoir, Fletcher assumed the risk of any accidents and escapes.

According to this principle, if a person brings a dangerous thing onto their land and it causes damage if it escapes, they are liable for the damage, even without negligence. Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into being.

Strict liability in environmental law holds individuals or entities responsible for harm caused by hazardous activities, regardless of fault. Established by cases like Rylands v. Fletcher, it applies to situations where dangerous substances escape and cause damage. Today, it ensures that those engaged in activities like waste disposal or chemical production are accountable for any resulting harm, even if they took precautions, emphasizing the need for preventive measures and ensuring the responsible parties bear the costs.

Legal Skeleton for environmental liability:

International environmental laws:
International environmental laws are essential in establishing the legal agendas for global environmental liability. These laws address trans-boundary environmental challenges, promote sustainable development and hold polluters accountable. The key treaties, such as the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement, focus on climate change mitigation. The Convention on Biological Diversity aims to conserve biodiversity, while the Basel Convention regulates hazardous waste. The Montreal Protocol protects the ozone layer, and IMO conventions govern marine pollution. Together, these laws foster international cooperation and guide nations in implementing effective environmental protections.
National legislation and regulations:
The Indian Constitution provides for environmental protection under Article 48A, mandating the State to protect and improve the environment and Article 51A(g) imposing a duty on citizens to do the same. While these are non-enforceable, the judiciary has read them in conjunction with Article 21, which guarantees the right to a pollution-free environment. Articles 32 and 226 enable courts to issue writs for environmental protection, expanding the principle of locus standi.

The Environment Protection Act, 1986, enacted after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, is a comprehensive law covering air, water, land, and living organisms. It empowers the Central Government to set standards, regulate hazardous substances, and take measures for environmental protection. The common law principle of nuisance, along with provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita offers legal recourse against environmental violations. Notably, in the Ratlam case (1980), the Supreme Court enforced local bodies' duties for public health and safety.

The Air Act and Water Act regulate pollutant discharge through licensing, with enforcement by Central and State Boards. Violations can lead to penalties, including industry closure. The Indian Forest Act, 1927, and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, protect forest lands, while the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, and other Acts like the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and Factories Act, 1948, address specific environmental concerns.

Moreover, the Environment Protection Act's Rules, such as the Hazardous Wastes Rules (1989), regulate hazardous substances. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, ensures compensation for victims of hazardous activities, and the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995, imposes strict liability for environmental damage, establishing tribunals for adjudication. Recent Supreme Court decisions have allowed referral of technical environmental matters to expert tribunals.
Principles Of Strict Liability In Environmental Law
Strict Liability is a legal principle where a party is held liable for damages caused by their actions or products, regardless of intent or negligence. In the context of environmental law, strict liability holds that an individual or company responsible for hazardous activities or substances that cause environmental harm is liable for the damage, even if they exercised all possible care.

The landmark case that established strict liability in India is Rylands v. Fletcher in 1868, where it was held that a person who brings or accumulates anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at their own peril. If they fail to do so, they are answerable for all the damage that is the natural consequence of its escape.

Elements and Conditions for Applying Strict Liability:

Hazardous Substance: The principle applies primarily to activities or substances inherently dangerous or capable of causing significant harm to the environment or public health.
Escape: There must be an escape of the hazardous substance from the defendant's premises to an outside area where it causes harm.
Non-Natural Use of Land: The activity leading to damage must be an unnatural or non-ordinary use of the land, increasing the risk of harm.
Damage or Harm: There must be actual damage or harm caused by the escape of the hazardous substance. Mere potential harm is insufficient for a strict liability claim.
Causation: The damage must be directly caused by the escape of the substance or by the hazardous activity. There should be a clear link between the defendant's actions and the harm caused.

Differences Between Strict Liability and Other Forms of Liability:

Strict Liability vs. Negligence: In negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm. Under strict liability, the plaintiff does not need to prove a lack of care—liability arises simply from the nature of the activity and the occurrence of harm.
Strict Liability vs. Absolute Liability: Absolute liability is a more stringent form of strict liability, particularly relevant in Indian environmental law as established in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case in 1987. Absolute liability holds that there are no exceptions or defenses available to the defendant when engaging in hazardous activities that cause harm.
Strict Liability vs. Vicarious Liability: Vicarious liability involves holding one party liable for the actions of another, such as an employer being held liable for the actions of an employee. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the activity itself rather than the relationship between parties.

Landmark cases and Judicial interpretations
Strict liability in environmental law is a principle where a party can be held liable for environmental harm without the need to prove negligence or intent. This concept has been shaped by several landmark cases in India and globally.

Rylands v. Fletcher, 1986:

This English case laid the foundation for the rule of strict liability.
The defendants, mill owners, constructed a reservoir on their land.
Water from the reservoir broke through old shafts beneath the surface and flooded the plaintiff's mines on the adjoining property.
The House of Lords held that a person who, for his purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril.
If he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
The Rylands v. Fletcher rule introduced the doctrine of strict liability for harm caused by hazardous activities influencing future environmental law cases worldwide.

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944):

In the 1944 case Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., the California Supreme Court ruled that Gladys Escola could recover damages from Coca-Cola for injuries caused by an exploding bottle under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
This doctrine allows a plaintiff to prove negligence indirectly if the accident implies the defendant's fault.
While the majority opinion applied this doctrine, the concurring opinion by Justice Roger Traynor was more influential.
Traynor proposed replacing res ipsa loquitur with "strict liability," where manufacturers are responsible for injuries from their products regardless of negligence.
This shift aimed to simplify victim compensation and encourage safer product standards.
Some of the elements that came out of this case are:

Res ipsa loquitur can prove negligence in product liability cases when the accident itself suggests fault.
The plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was defective and that this defect led to the injury.
Defendants might avoid liability if they can prove that the defect resulted from the plaintiff's own actions or another external cause.
Strict liability is a newer approach that holds manufacturers accountable for product-related injuries, regardless of negligence.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India:

In December 1985, oleum gas leaked from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi, causing widespread panic and some injuries.
The Supreme Court of India held that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities that pose a potential risk to the health and safety of people must ensure absolute liability for any harm caused by such activities.
The Court introduced the concept of "Absolute Liability," a stricter form of liability than "Strict Liability," which does not allow any defenses like an act of God or third-party interference.
This ruling marked a significant shift in Indian environmental law.
It set a precedent that companies engaged in dangerous industrial activities could not escape liability for damages caused by their operations, regardless of precautions taken.
This case laid the groundwork for the principle of absolute liability in India.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996:

The case elaborates on the discharge of toxic effluents by chemical industries in the Bichhri village in Rajasthan, which severely contaminated the environment and adversely affected the health of the villagers.
The Supreme Court held the industries strictly liable for the pollution they caused and ordered them to compensate for the environmental damage.
The Court emphasized the "Polluter Pays Principle" and reiterated the importance of strict liability in cases of environmental harm.
The judgment secured the doctrine of strict liability and the polluter pays principle in Indian environmental law, ensuring that those responsible for environmental degradation must bear the cost of remedying the damage.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996:

The case was filed by Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum to highlight the pollution caused by tanneries in Tamil Nadu, which had contaminated the water resources in the area.

The Supreme Court held that sustainable development is part of the law of the land and that industrial pollution must be controlled. The Court directed the industries to adopt pollution control measures and pay compensation for the environmental damage caused.

However the case expanded the scope of strict liability and underscored the importance of sustainable development balancing industrial progress with environmental protection.

However, the above mentioned cases have reshaped environmental law by shifting from negligence to stricter liability, facilitating compensation for affected communities, compelling industries to improve practices, integrating sustainable development into law, and strengthening the overall legal framework for environmental protection.

Implementation And Enforcement Mechanisms:

Role of environmental protection agencies:
Three responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are to develop and enforce regulations, study environmental issues, and teach people about the environment. By studying environmental issues the EPA can identify and rectify dangerous environmental conditions. When educating the public the EPA can extend its reach and give the population the ability to increase the health of our natural resources.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a national agency designed to preserve and protect our air, water, and land. The EPA's mission statement and purpose are to "Protect Human Health and the Environment". The EPA writes regulations and enforces standards based on Laws.
Challenges in Enforcement:
Enforcing strict liability faces challenges such as proving causation, financial and political pressures, and the evolving nature of environmental threats. EPAs address these by leveraging scientific advancements, international cooperation, and adaptive management approaches. Strengthening legal frameworks and public awareness are also key to maintaining effective enforcement and holding polluters accountable.

Penalties and Remedies
Penalties:
Environmental pollution in India is regulated under various laws, with punishments depending on the type and severity of the violation.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This Act imposes penalties, fines, and imprisonment for water pollution.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: This Act addresses air pollution with similar punishments.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: This Act empowers the central government to enforce environmental protection, with violations resulting in fines or imprisonment.
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991: This Act requires insurance for handling hazardous substances, with penalties for non-compliance.
National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010: This Act establishes the NGT to handle environmental cases and impose penalties.
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: Wildlife Protection Act protects wildlife, with violations leading to fines or imprisonment.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: This Act aims to conserve forests, with penalties for violations.

Remedies:

Compensation for victims: Polluters are often required to pay compensation to individuals and communities affected by their actions. This can include covering medical expenses for health issues caused by pollution, loss of livelihood, or the cost of relocating to a safer environment.
Environmental restoration: Beyond financial compensation, polluters may be required to restore the environment to its original state. This could involve cleaning up polluted land, water bodies, or air, reforesting deforested areas, or rehabilitating damaged ecosystems.
Creation of environmental funds: In some cases, courts order the creation of environmental funds, where polluters deposit money that will be used for ongoing environmental protection and restoration efforts.
Provision of long-term care: For severe cases where pollution has long-lasting effects, polluters may be required to provide long-term care or health monitoring for affected populations, ensuring ongoing support for those impacted.

Case Studies of Successful Enforcement:

Bhopal Gas Tragedy: The 1984 gas leak from Union Carbide's Bhopal plant led to thousands of deaths and long-term health issues. A controversial $470 million settlement highlighted the need for strict liability and timely enforcement.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: The 1989 oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound resulted in over $1 billion in damages and mandated environmental restoration, setting a precedent for large-scale accountability.
TVA Coal Ash Spill: In 2008, the Tennessee Valley Authority's coal ash spill released toxic sludge, leading to a $27.8 million settlement and $1 billion for cleanup and remediation.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: This landmark case saw the Supreme Court of India impose strict penalties on industries polluting the Ganges River, enforcing pollution control measures and demonstrating the judiciary's role in holding polluters accountable.

Conclusion
In conclusion, strict liability in environmental law serves as a crucial mechanism for holding individuals and entities accountable for environmental harm caused by hazardous activities. The evolution of this principle, from the landmark Rylands v. Fletcher case to its contemporary application, underscores the shift towards prioritizing preventive measures and ensuring responsible management of hazardous substances. Through stringent legal frameworks, both internationally and nationally, and by emphasizing principles such as the "Polluter Pays Principle," strict liability aims to deter harmful practices and foster a culture of environmental stewardship.

Despite the challenges faced in enforcement, such as proving causation and managing financial and political pressures, ongoing efforts to strengthen legal structures and enhance public awareness play a vital role in advancing environmental protection. Landmark cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill exemplify the application of strict liability in achieving justice and promoting environmental restoration. As environmental threats continue to evolve, the continued development and enforcement of strict liability principles remain essential in ensuring a sustainable and healthy environment for current and future generations

References:

https://ijlmh.com/paper/the-rule-of-strict-liability-and-absolute-liability-in-indian-perspective/
https://www.universityoftechnology.edu.in/blog/environmental-law-definition-and-components/
https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1999/11/environment-law-in-india-an-overview
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13257-doctrine-of-strict-and-absolute-liability-exploring-landmark-cases.html
https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1999/11/environment-law-in-india-an-overview
https://ijlmh.com/paper/the-rule-of-strict-liability-and-absolute-liability-in-indianperspective/#:
https://www.njlrii.com/2022/12/evolution-of-principle-of-absolute.html
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2755185
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347916540_Strict_Liability_for_Environmental_Offenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
https://ijlmh.com/strict-liability-in-international-environmental-law-still-in-dilemma/
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/environmental-crime-and-the-law#
https://medicopublication.com/index.php/ijfmt/article/
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/strict-liability-v-absolute-liability-vis-a-vis-vishakhapatnam-gas-leak-tragedy-why-the-order-of-ngt-is-cause-a-concern
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-the-polluter-pays-principle/
https://indiankanoon.rg/docfragment/1514672/?formInput=polluter%20pays%20principle
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others, 1 SCC 388 (Supreme Court of India 1997).
Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 HL 330 (LR 1868).
Shanmuganathan D, Warren LM. Status of sustainable development as a principle of national and international law: the Indian approach. Journal of Environmental Law. 1997 Jan 1;9(2):387-402
https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1999/11/environment-law-in-india-an-overview